Netto

[bish]

Hi

This question has probably been ask many time!
My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
the vario needle.
Why should I choose one or the other?
Or which is most usefull?
Thank you
S6

[BobW]

On 7/29/2011 11:19 AM, bish wrote:
> Hi
>
> This question has probably been ask many time!
> My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
> the vario needle.
> Why should I choose one or the other?
> Or which is most usefull?
> Thank you
> S6

Uh oh...one of those 'religious questions' on RAS. Everyone tighten your
seatbelts!

Disclaimer: I have absolutely Zero Experience/Exposure to an LX 7000. The rest
of this comes from a pilot having flown only w. a(n excellent) mechanical
netto display since 1981.

Further - displaying additional ignorance here - I'll admit to being uncertain
what 'relative netto' actually is or means. That noted, after being exposed to
*netto* 'way back when' and pondering on it briefly, my brain asked itself the
question, "What more do I need or want to know than what the air is actually
doing?" From that single piece of information, everything else I - as Joe
Glider Pilot - might *want* to do becomes immediately obvious.

Assuming your ship has decent speed compensation, a netto display instantly:
1) lets you accurately conclude if the air through which you're flying is
'climbworthy,' and 2) (when combined with a good, old-fashioned, speed-to-fly
ring, set as desired for the day in question, and, flying in descending air)
instantly/continuously points to the correct speed to fly, in a non-iterative
manner. Non-netto mechanical displays with which I'm familiar, achieve these
two things only via indirect/iterative means, IMHO. Joe Pilot has to do
considerably more mental work/instrument-gazing with a non-netto display.

All bets may be off with electronic?microprocessor-based indicators...though
just because something is electronic is no guarantee of 'new-&-improved' or
'simpler' or 'better' information display, in my experience.

To my way of thinking (being a simple kind of guy), an analog-displayed netto
(whether achieved mechanically or electronically), combined with a speed ring,
is simple and intuitive, and not obviously improved upon. (I'm aware of how
useful a well-implemented audio can be...)

Downsides?
1) You'll get 'somewhat bogus' information on tow, due to the influence of the
towplane's added energy...truly a minor deal to me. Certainly it never
hampered/bothered my "OK to release?" decision, since the first few moments of
towed flight - regardless of towplane or situation - quickly allows
determination of that particular tow combination's steady state netto
indication, hence anything above that is lift, of immediately known strength.
2) Some don't like not 'knowing' the actual climb rate when climbing, since
the needle displays air vertical motion, not glider vertical motion. Never
having had difficulty subtracting 200 from a needle indication, it never
bothered me. Besides, having begun soaring in the days before electronics, I
quickly developed the habit of timing my actual rate of climb (sweep second
hand and altimeter) anyway, from which I concluded most people were hopeless
optimists when it came to reporting *their* climb rates. :)

Use what works best for how your mind works, and go have fun!

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. Kinda-sorta related, don't lose sleep over errors inherent in 'polar
uncertainties' (e.g. ballast or not, circling or not). From Joe Average
Pilot's perspective. this sort of 'stuff' is in the noise level compared to
the lift/sink strengths on which you'll be basing your 'thermic day' flight
decisions.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>Hi
>
>This question has probably been ask many time!
>My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto
for
>the vario needle.
>Why should I choose one or the other?
>Or which is most usefull?
>Thank you
>S6
>

When not to cruise with Relative would be for wave or ridge flights
without thermalling - because the Relative indication includes an
estimate of the thermalling sink of your gider which would be
illogical in straight line lift.

For thermal flying use Relative if your main concern is picking the
thermal to climb on or use Netto if your main concern is picking lift
or reduced sink lines to optimise your cruise.

IMHO

[John Sinclair[_2_]]

At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>Hi
>
>This question has probably been ask many time!
>My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
>the vario needle

During cruise with pure Netto selected the needle will be down most of the
time. When you go through a 3 knot thermal your display will go from 600
down to 300 down, hard to realize you are in a 3 knotter. If you select
relative Netto, the display will show the climb rate you will get if you
slow down to thermal speed, or 300 up! Much easier to read and understand.
I never use anything but relative netto.
JJ

[BobW]

On 7/31/2011 9:43 AM, John Sinclair wrote:
> At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> This question has probably been ask many time!
>> My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
>> the vario needle
>
> During cruise with pure Netto selected the needle will be down most of the
> time. When you go through a 3 knot thermal your display will go from 600
> down to 300 down, hard to realize you are in a 3 knotter. If you select
> relative Netto, the display will show the climb rate you will get if you
> slow down to thermal speed, or 300 up! Much easier to read and understand.
> I never use anything but relative netto.
> JJ
>

Because JJ's description of "netto" apparently conflicts with what I posted
earlier, this may be a good place to define "netto" (as I've learned/used
it...not all soaring descriptions are universal).

To me, "netto" means a vario display indicating the actual vertical air
motion, relative to the earth's surface...i.e. 'net air motion' once the
glider's own speed-dependent sink-rate contribution has been
subtracted/eliminated from the picture. In other words, 'my netto display'
always indicates actual air motion, independent of glider speed (the 'glider
speed' bit being the 'compensation' part). No interpretation needed - that's
the beauty of it, so far as my brain is concerned. And that's also why the
speed ring doesn't require the pilot to iterate in on the speed to
fly...because the glider's increasing sink rate with increasing speed has
already been subtracted out of the display. Hence the vario needle *always*
points to 'absolute air motion,' and in consequence to the whatever speed to
fly your ring setting calls for.

Everything in my earlier post presumed 'my netto definition.'

It's entirely possible the LX 7000 folks use a different definition; if they
do, you're on your own! :)

Regards,
Bob W.

[John Sinclair[_2_]]

At 15:43 31 July 2011, John Sinclair wrote:
>At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>This question has probably been ask many time!
>>My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
>>the vario needle
>
>During cruise with pure Netto selected the needle will be down most of
the
>time. When you go through a 3 knot thermal your display will go from 600
>down to 300 down, hard to realize you are in a 3 knotter. If you select
>relative Netto, the display will show the climb rate you will get if you
>slow down to thermal speed, or 300 up! Much easier to read and
understand.
>I never use anything but relative netto.
>JJ
>
>
TEST

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:30:20 -0600, BobW wrote:

> On 7/31/2011 9:43 AM, John Sinclair wrote:
>> At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> This question has probably been ask many time! My new to me LX 7000
>>> offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for the vario needle
>>
>> During cruise with pure Netto selected the needle will be down most of
>> the time. When you go through a 3 knot thermal your display will go
>> from 600 down to 300 down, hard to realize you are in a 3 knotter. If
>> you select relative Netto, the display will show the climb rate you
>> will get if you slow down to thermal speed, or 300 up! Much easier to
>> read and understand. I never use anything but relative netto. JJ
>>
>>
> Because JJ's description of "netto" apparently conflicts with what I
> posted earlier, this may be a good place to define "netto" (as I've
> learned/used it...not all soaring descriptions are universal).
>
> To me, "netto" means a vario display indicating the actual vertical air
> motion, relative to the earth's surface...i.e. 'net air motion' once the
> glider's own speed-dependent sink-rate contribution has been
> subtracted/eliminated from the picture. In other words, 'my netto
> display' always indicates actual air motion, independent of glider speed
> (the 'glider speed' bit being the 'compensation' part). No
> interpretation needed - that's the beauty of it, so far as my brain is
> concerned. And that's also why the speed ring doesn't require the pilot
> to iterate in on the speed to fly...because the glider's increasing sink
> rate with increasing speed has already been subtracted out of the
> display. Hence the vario needle *always* points to 'absolute air
> motion,' and in consequence to the whatever speed to fly your ring
> setting calls for.
>
Yes, I agree, but 'super netto' or 'relative netto' are alternative terms
for something different from either TE vario of 'netto'.

A 'super netto' vario shows what a glider would be doing if it was flying
in the current air mass at its thermalling speed, so as well as the TE
input, it also needs the current IAS and the glider's polar.

I fly with an SDI C4 vario, which is a pure TE vario in climb mode and a
super netto vario in cruise mode. It has several ways of switching
between the two: manual, off the GPS (which is meant to detect circling)
or off airspeed (two separate speeds: cruise->climb and climb->cruise). I
prefer the latter though I needed to tune the C4's switch points to suit
the glider and my flying style. Its noises reflect the mode - climb rate
in climb mode and two other sounds for cruise, when it operates as a
speed director and takes the Macready setting into account.

I really like the way it works and, if forced to replace it, would want a
vario with exactly the same functions. IOW, 'super netto' works well for
me in cruise.

HTH



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[BobW]

On 7/31/2011 2:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 11:30:20 -0600, BobW wrote:
>

>>> At 17:19 29 July 2011, bish wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> This question has probably been ask many time! My new to me LX 7000
>>>> offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for the vario needle
>>>

<Snip...>

>> ...this may be a good place to define "netto" (as I've
>> learned/used it...not all soaring descriptions are universal).
>>
>> To me, "netto" means a vario display indicating the actual vertical air
>> motion, relative to the earth's surface...i.e. 'net air motion' once the
>> glider's own speed-dependent sink-rate contribution has been
>> subtracted/eliminated from the picture. In other words, 'my netto
>> display' always indicates actual air motion, independent of glider speed
>> (the 'glider speed' bit being the 'compensation' part). No
>> interpretation needed - that's the beauty of it, so far as my brain is
>> concerned. And that's also why the speed ring doesn't require the pilot
>> to iterate in on the speed to fly...because the glider's increasing sink
>> rate with increasing speed has already been subtracted out of the
>> display. Hence the vario needle *always* points to 'absolute air
>> motion,' and in consequence to the whatever speed to fly your ring
>> setting calls for.
>>
> Yes, I agree, but 'super netto' or 'relative netto' are alternative terms
> for something different from either TE vario of 'netto'.
>
> A 'super netto' vario shows what a glider would be doing if it was flying
> in the current air mass at its thermalling speed, so as well as the TE
> input, it also needs the current IAS and the glider's polar.
>
> I fly with an SDI C4 vario, which is a pure TE vario in climb mode and a
> super netto vario in cruise mode. It has several ways of switching
> between the two: manual, off the GPS (which is meant to detect circling)
> or off airspeed (two separate speeds: cruise->climb and climb->cruise). I
> prefer the latter though I needed to tune the C4's switch points to suit
> the glider and my flying style. Its noises reflect the mode - climb rate
> in climb mode and two other sounds for cruise, when it operates as a
> speed director and takes the Macready setting into account.
>
> I really like the way it works and, if forced to replace it, would want a
> vario with exactly the same functions. IOW, 'super netto' works well for
> me in cruise.
>
> HTH

"Ah so! I think I'm getting a glimmer of 'adjectivized "netto"'."

Cogitating on the statement, "'...super netto' vario shows what a glider would
be doing if it was flying in the current air mass at its thermalling speed, so
as well as the TE input, it also needs the current IAS and the glider's
polar," this - to me - seems to simply be subtracting (roughly) 200 fpm from a
'unadjectivized "Netto"' display, which itself already (as best as is known
and the designer of the instrument can) subtracts out the glider's
speed-dependent, straight-line, polar. It may just be the way my brain works,
but - to me - this definition of 'super netto' merely adds a(n unnecessary)
layer of complexity to a simple concept of crucial interest to every glider
pilot, i.e.: What is the air through which I'm flying, doing?" The answer to
that question - along with the glider pilot's goals of the moment -
determines everything else the glider pilot *might* want to do.

Based on various conversations through the years with fellow glider pilots who
(often, apparently) did not fully grasp the power-inherent-to (concept of?)
'unadjectivized "netto",' and who (also often) 'poo-pooed the concept' by
(correctly) noting the vario would not display actual climb rate when
thermaling (it reads high by the incremental circling sink rate of the glider,
or, the 200 fpm I keep referencing...200 fpm presuming that Joe Glider Pilot
knows how to most effectively thermal his sailplane), I'd guess this is
wherefrom springs the flight-mode-based, mode-switching-vario-based display
apparently known as 'pure TE vario in climb mode' and 'super netto vario in
cruise mode.'

Anything that floats your boat is good, I reckon, but my simplistic brain
can't help but wonder, "Why is any of this necessary, and how is it *better*
than 'unadjectivized "Netto"'? When I first installed my 'unadjectivixed
"Netto"' system (the display replaced an old, sticking, TE-compensated PZL
unit), I left in place - but now vented to cockpit (i.e. non-compensated) - an
electric Ball vario, simply for its audio, which I'd set to squeal above some
daily climb-rate-dependent threshold; else it was silent. A few years later,
when the Ball died, I didn't bother to replace it, going only with the
(silent) 'unadjectivized "Netto"'. Worked just fine for me...though I
occasionally encountered pilots who implied I was 'being dangerous' by soaring
w/o an audio.

A few 'weird Libelle pilots' (and myself) aside, most glider cockpits I've
seen have (at least!) two varios, so I suppose a person might argue that -
when I still had the Ball in place - I was using two varios to do what the C4
(with which I'm 100% ignorant) implements in a single unit...save for the fact
it 'continually subtracts' that aforementioned 200 fpm/2 knots when in cruise
mode.

Anyhow, returning to the O.P.'s O.Q. (original question), my vote would be to
use 'unadjectivized "Netto"' for at least a couple of 'longish soaring
flights' or until such time as what I've tried to describe makes
conceptual/in-flight sense. Once it does, try whatever other display options
the LX-7000 has (all of which likely 'add conceptual complexity to' the basic
'unadjectivized "netto"' concept). Going that route will ensure making 'the
most informed' decision as to 'which is best.'

Have fun!
Bob W.

P.S. Keeping things as simple as possible at the outset will maximize the
likelihood of avoiding 'a mental rathole' quite possibly detectable in
differences between display methodology. What Joe Glider Pilot is (or should
be, dry chuckle) interested in is maximizing effective use of the energy
contained within the air through which he's flying. Anything else is 'somewhat
beside the point' if remaining aloft (or XC) is a given flight's fundamental
goal. Satisfy yourself your instrumentation is - or is not - providing you
'intelligible data' before worrying about 'instrumentation differences.' I
suspect that failure to adhere to this concept is one reason so many pilots
have multiple - competing - varios.

[BobW]

On 7/31/2011 2:02 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:

>> To me, "netto" means a vario display indicating the actual vertical air
>> motion, relative to the earth's surface...i.e. 'net air motion' once the
>> glider's own speed-dependent sink-rate contribution has been
>> subtracted/eliminated from the picture. In other words, 'my netto
>> display' always indicates actual air motion, independent of glider speed
>> (the 'glider speed' bit being the 'compensation' part). No
>> interpretation needed - that's the beauty of it, so far as my brain is
>> concerned. And that's also why the speed ring doesn't require the pilot
>> to iterate in on the speed to fly...because the glider's increasing sink
>> rate with increasing speed has already been subtracted out of the
>> display. Hence the vario needle *always* points to 'absolute air
>> motion,' and in consequence to the whatever speed to fly your ring
>> setting calls for.
>>
> Yes, I agree, but 'super netto' or 'relative netto' are alternative terms
> for something different from either TE vario of 'netto'.
>
> A 'super netto' vario shows what a glider would be doing if it was flying
> in the current air mass at its thermalling speed, so as well as the TE
> input, it also needs the current IAS and the glider's polar.

<Snip...>

Trying to keep things simple (for my simple brain), here's my understanding of
the following terms...

Unadjectivized "netto" - subtracts out the glider's (presumed known) straignt
line, speed-dependent polar from (the common, everyone-is-comfortable-with-it)
'pure TE vario' display...(theoretically) yielding a speed-independent display
of actual vertical air motion, relative to the earth's surface.

Super/Relative "netto" - *FURTHER* aubtracts out the glider's (also presumed
known) circling-in-lift sink rate *increment* (i.e. the bit exceeding the
straight line sink rate at thermaling speed) *FROM* the 'unadjectivized
"netto"' display...(theoretically) yielding a speed-independent display NOT of
vertical air motion, but of 'theoretical projected climb rate' should Joe
Glider Pilot decide to stop and thermal.

The former subtracts out a speed-dependent, quadratically-approximate polar
curve, while...

the latter subtracts out [the former + a thermaling increment/constant].
- - - - - -

Both quantities subtracted are approximations of reality, though a good
argument can be made that speed-dependent polars are more precisely known (at
least in the public world of shared, measured data) than are circling sink
rates (and by implication, their increment above the non-circling sink rate at
thermaling speed).
- - - - - -

My guess is 'actual vertical air motion' is what every hawk intuitively is
interested in. Certainly an interesting, discussion-worthy topic for those
non-soaring times. Is there a 'best display'? It depends!!!

Regards,
Bob W.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:18:02 -0600, BobW wrote:

> A few 'weird Libelle pilots' (and myself) aside, most glider cockpits
> I've seen have (at least!) two varios, so I suppose a person might argue
> that - when I still had the Ball in place - I was using two varios to do
> what the C4 (with which I'm 100% ignorant) implements in a single
> unit...save for the fact it 'continually subtracts' that aforementioned
> 200 fpm/2 knots when in cruise mode.
>
I'm also a Libelle driver, though of the two vario variety: I carry a
Borgelt B.40 as backup to the C4 and fins its extremely rapid response is
a useful addition to the C4, especially for finding the hot spots under
large clouds.

I've wondered why the C4 uses super netto rather than plain netto in
cruise mode. My current best guess is that maybe the switch from netto to
TE modes causes the vario to step its reading. The C4 never produces a
sudden reading change that I've noticed when it switches between modes.

> Anyhow, returning to the O.P.'s O.Q. (original question), my vote would
> be to use 'unadjectivized "Netto"' for at least a couple of 'longish
> soaring flights' or until such time as what I've tried to describe makes
> conceptual/in-flight sense.
>
Agreed. I suggest the OP does a few flights with each netto setting, in
each case staying with the same netto type long enough to get used to
what its telling him in cruise mode. Then he should simply use the one he
likes best.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[bish]

On 1 août, 18:24, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:18:02 -0600, BobW wrote:
> > A few 'weird Libelle pilots' (and myself) aside, most glider cockpits
> > I've seen have (at least!) two varios, so I suppose a person might argue
> > that - when I still had the Ball in place - I was using two varios to do
> > what the C4 (with which I'm 100% ignorant) implements in a single
> > unit...save for the fact it 'continually subtracts' that aforementioned
> > 200 fpm/2 knots when in cruise mode.
>
> I'm also a Libelle driver, though of the two vario variety: I carry a
> Borgelt B.40 as backup to the C4 and fins its extremely rapid response is
> a useful addition to the C4, especially for finding the hot spots under
> large clouds. *
>
> I've wondered why the C4 uses super netto rather than plain netto in
> cruise mode. My current best guess is that maybe the switch from netto to
> TE modes causes the vario to step its reading. The C4 never produces a
> sudden reading change that I've noticed when it switches between modes.
>
> > Anyhow, returning to the O.P.'s O.Q. (original question), my vote would
> > be to use 'unadjectivized "Netto"' for at least a couple of 'longish
> > soaring flights' or until such time as what I've tried to describe makes
> > conceptual/in-flight sense.
>
> Agreed. I suggest the OP does a few flights with each netto setting, *in
> each case staying with the same netto type long enough to get used to
> what its telling him in cruise mode. Then he should simply use the one he
> likes best.
>
> --
> martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org * * * |

Thank you for your for your answer.
The owner manuel says; netto is what the airmass is doing, relative
vario is what you would get if you stop for thermaling.
After 50 hours with netto I will try relative netto for a while.
The best of lift.
S6

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 29, 7:05*pm, BobW > wrote:
> On 7/29/2011 11:19 AM, bish wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> > This question has probably been ask many time!
> > My new to me LX 7000 offer the choice of Netto or Relative netto for
> > the vario needle.
> > Why should I choose one or the other?
> > Or which is most usefull?
> > Thank you
> > S6
>
> Uh oh...one of those 'religious questions' on RAS. Everyone tighten your
> seatbelts!
>
> Disclaimer: I have absolutely Zero Experience/Exposure to an LX 7000. The rest
> of this comes from a pilot having flown only w. a(n excellent) mechanical
> netto display since 1981.
>
> Further - displaying additional ignorance here - I'll admit to being uncertain
> what 'relative netto' actually is or means. That noted, after being exposed to
> *netto* 'way back when' and pondering on it briefly, my brain asked itself the
> question, "What more do I need or want to know than what the air is actually
> doing?" From that single piece of information, everything else I - as Joe
> Glider Pilot - might *want* to do becomes immediately obvious.
>
> Assuming your ship has decent speed compensation, a netto display instantly:
> 1) lets you accurately conclude if the air through which you're flying is
> 'climbworthy,' and 2) (when combined with a good, old-fashioned, speed-to-fly
> ring, set as desired for the day in question, and, flying in descending air)
> instantly/continuously points to the correct speed to fly, in a non-iterative
> manner. Non-netto mechanical displays with which I'm familiar, achieve these
> two things only via indirect/iterative means, IMHO. Joe Pilot has to do
> considerably more mental work/instrument-gazing with a non-netto display.
>
> All bets may be off with electronic?microprocessor-based indicators...though
> just because something is electronic is no guarantee of 'new-&-improved' or
> 'simpler' or 'better' information display, in my experience.
>
> To my way of thinking (being a simple kind of guy), an analog-displayed netto
> (whether achieved mechanically or electronically), combined with a speed ring,
> is simple and intuitive, and not obviously improved upon. (I'm aware of how
> useful a well-implemented audio can be...)
>
> Downsides?
> 1) You'll get 'somewhat bogus' information on tow, due to the influence of the
> towplane's added energy...truly a minor deal to me. Certainly it never
> hampered/bothered my "OK to release?" decision, since the first few moments of
> towed flight - regardless of towplane or situation - quickly allows
> determination of that particular tow combination's steady state netto
> indication, hence anything above that is lift, of immediately known strength.
> 2) Some don't like not 'knowing' the actual climb rate when climbing, since
> the needle displays air vertical motion, not glider vertical motion. Never
> having had difficulty subtracting 200 from a needle indication, it never
> bothered me. Besides, having begun soaring in the days before electronics, I
> quickly developed the habit of timing my actual rate of climb (sweep second
> hand and altimeter) anyway, from which I concluded most people were hopeless
> optimists when it came to reporting *their* climb rates. :)
>
> Use what works best for how your mind works, and go have fun!
>
> Regards,
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. Kinda-sorta related, don't lose sleep over errors inherent in 'polar
> uncertainties' (e.g. ballast or not, circling or not). From Joe Average
> Pilot's perspective. this sort of 'stuff' is in the noise level compared to
> the lift/sink strengths on which you'll be basing your 'thermic day' flight
> decisions.

Slightly OT, but do you fly without an audio?

THAT is scary! Especially, if you are staring at a stopwatch and
altimeter, trying to figure out what your climb rate is, and watch the
vario needle to center the thermal. Doesn't leave much time for
looking out the window...

The beauty of modern gizmos is that they do all that "stuff" for you,
and let you concentrate on what is going on outside the cockpit, where
there be dragons!

As far as Relative (or Super) Netto, it just takes one more bit of
math out of the cockpit - just like regular netto takes some math out
compared to plain old TE.

So, I'm cruising along, waiting for a 5 knot thermal to climb in.
With a regular Netto, I've got to wait for a 7 knotter. With
relative, I just wait until I see 5 knots, and up we go!

Truthfully, I've tried both, and kinda prefer plain old netto,
especially when running under cloud streets...

Cheers!

Kirk
66

[BobW]

On 8/2/2011 11:56 AM, kirk.stant wrote:

<Major snip...>

> Slightly OT, but do you fly without an audio?

Probably more than 50% of the time. Learned that way, have had ships with and
without audio, and find it useful and a convenience, but far from
'life-or-death crucial.' For that matter, having: 1) flown (including
thermal-XC) without functioning vario (several times...usually from water in
the plumbing); 2) flown (thermal XC again) without functioning ASI
(intermittent 'T/U' on a series of XC flights before 'indubitable death'); and
3) flown (once, thermal XC again) w/o vario *and* ASI (water, again), I've
found the first two conditions are pretty much non-events, while the last
combination took maybe 15 minutes or so to get accustomed to, but one's butt
and ears are actually quite sensitive if you pay attention to 'em. The butt in
particular is really good at detecting vertical acceleration *changes* which -
if Joe Glider Pilot learns to pay effective attention to it/'em - is far
quicker than any vario, which displays motion only after it has occurred, no
matter how short the vario's time constant.

>
> THAT is scary!

Why?

Especially, if you are staring at a stopwatch and
> altimeter, trying to figure out what your climb rate is, and watch the
> vario needle to center the thermal. Doesn't leave much time for
> looking out the window...

Ah! Who said anything about 'staring'? Peripheral vision works quite well for
noting (say) vertical passage of a sweep second hand and progression of an
altimeter hand on routine panel scans. (Anyone who thinks measuring a climb
rate over less than 30 seconds is 'XC valid' is indulging in self-deception; I
happen to prefer 60 seconds as 'more honest.' In any event, it's probably the
rare glider pilot who doesn't scan SOMEthing on the panel once or twice a
minute. Time yourself some time!)

Furthermore, my instructor pithily noted, "Staring at the instruments doesn't
make you climb any faster." He further noted, "Besides, climbing after a
mid-air collision is generally impossible." Both droll understatements made
perfectly good sense to me, even if I had NOT paid very close attention to
listening to and learning from what he sought to convey to me.

>
> The beauty of modern gizmos is that they do all that "stuff" for you,
> and let you concentrate on what is going on outside the cockpit, where
> there be dragons!

Agreed on both counts, but especially the 'dragons' bit. Situational awareness
is the key.

That's true not 'merely' in sailplanes. Consider the drive to and from the
gliderport...I don't - in the absence of a functioning speedometer - have any
trouble driving a vehicle with which I'm 'a few drives worth' familiar and
remaining speeding-ticket-free. BTDT in lots of vehicles, from cars to big
rigs to buses over the years. 'Ear calibration' is real. Situational awareness
is real. Practice ought not to be only a sometime event.

Of course, I'm not about to claim ear/butt calibration is as precise/effective
as 'the latest-n-greatest instrumentation,' but I hope the point that - at
least in the intermountain west on any averagely decent day for a 'moderately
experienced' sailplane pilot - 'modern gizmos' while usefully enabling, are
far from absolutely necessary. Cat-skinning remains a multi-method activity.

> As far as Relative (or Super) Netto, it just takes one more bit of
> math out of the cockpit - just like regular netto takes some math out
> compared to plain old TE.

Granted, but you don't get it 'for free.' The instrument designer is making an
educated guess as to your ship's 'circling sink rate increment.' Presuming
curiosity, Joe Pilot's own tests may disagree with the designer's guess. But
more to the point, is it *really* so difficult to always subtract 2 knots from
a glanced-at instrument reading? As non-mathematical a mind as is mine, that
subtraction quickly became second nature for me. This is one case where I find
the raw data more rapidly comprehensible/useful than massaged data.
Cat-skinning, again...
>
> So, I'm cruising along, waiting for a 5 knot thermal to climb in.
> With a regular Netto, I've got to wait for a 7 knotter. With
> relative, I just wait until I see 5 knots, and up we go!
>
> Truthfully, I've tried both, and kinda prefer plain old netto,
> especially when running under cloud streets...
>
> Cheers!
>
> Kirk
> 66

Regards,
Bob - no harm, no foul? - W