Any sailplane pilots?

[Chuck]

My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.

We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
airworthiness certificate.

Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.

I have never been around them before.

Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Have you checked out rec.aviation.soaring ?

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:00:30 GMT, "Chuck" > wrote
in Message-Id: et>:

>My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.

I've some experience with the Schweizer 1-26. It had an L/D of <30
IIRC. Do you know the L/D of the 1-36?
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Schweizer-1-36/

>We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
>put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
>airworthiness certificate.
>
>Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.

It is a contest between the pilot and mother nature. The idea is to
spend more time in rising air than sinking air, and thus gain and
sustain altitude. The pilot must mentally visualize the movements of
the air masses in his vicinity, due to convective and orographic
vertical displacement, solely through interpreting instrument
indications and seat-of-the-pants cues.

The spectrum of soaring meteorological conditions ranges from flat
(little or no vertical movement of the air mass) to booming. During
the latter, the pilot is nearly unable to prevent his ship from
rising; it's like having a motor. On an average day, a pilot will
spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
Because this can require banks in excess of 60 degrees, occupants ware
a parachute. Such long, constant high-G circling can adversely affect
passengers of multi-place sailplanes, but the pilot will find it
exhilarating. The sport of soaring adds another dimension to similar
naturally powered sports such as sailing, surfing, and skiing...

>I have never been around them before.
>
>Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
>

[newsgroup rec.aviation.soaring added]

[Shirley]

"Chuck" chuck wrote:

>My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
[snip]
>Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.

It is!

>Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...

Don't know how many guys, but here's one gal. They are very interesting, a lot
of fun, teach you about energy management, and ... when the engine fails ... oh
wait ... there isn't one!! How great is that??!!

Assuming your cousin has a glider rating? or wants to get one? (what
city/state?)

--Shirley

[Shirley]

Larry Dighera LDighera wrote:

>I've some experience with the Schweizer 1-26.
>It had an L/D of <30 IIRC.

L/D on the 1-26 is 23:1, same as the Schweizer 2-33 (2-place).

>Do you know the L/D of the 1-36?

31:1

>It is a contest between the pilot and mother
>nature. The idea is to spend more time in rising
>air than sinking air, and thus gain and sustain
>altitude. The pilot must mentally visualize the
>movements of the air masses in his vicinity,
>due to convective and orographic vertical
>displacement, solely through interpreting
>instrument indications and seat-of-the-pants cues.

Great description!

BTW, on good days during thermal season, it is possible to climb w/o banking in
that extreme or needing a parachute. I climbed to 11K feet this summer in a
1-26 from a 2000-ft tow and was never banked more than 30 degrees ... and the
lift was still strong enough I could have continued, but didn't have oxygen.
Sometimes exposing more of the sailplane surface to the lift (shallow bank)
works as well or better, if you can do that and stay in the thermal ... depends
on the thermal(s) and you don't know until you get in it. Sometimes you fly
right out of it a few times before you figure out where you need to make your
circles.

Very, very fun.

--Shirley

[olj]

I've flown power planes for a long time. Sailplanes only 20 years. Soaring has
one huge advantage - there is no justification for it. No rationalizations
like "I'll use it for trips" or other such nonsense. It is pure fun. It is
done as a result of weather, not in spite of it.

You can spend a lot, you can spend a little. In power planes it is mostly
spend a lot. Maintenance is far less on the glider. Mine is kept
in a trailer. I can assemble it by myself in 15 to 20 minutes.

Gliders take more support people. Gliders are more time intensive. You do not
go out to the field for a quick half hour flight, it is usually a half day.

Soaring days are limited to weather conditions and as a result, the activity
does not mesh well with power flying activities. Power activities are
scheduled. You soar when the weather dictates or else you don't soar.

Average flight length for me is about 3 hours. Fatigue becomes a factor
for me after 3 hours and I don't like to go over 6 hours. All "flat land"
flying.

Soaring has been the most enjoyable flying that I have done, from little
fast single seaters through multi-turbines.


In article et>, "Chuck"
> wrote:
>My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
>
>We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
>put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
>airworthiness certificate.
>
>Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
>
>I have never been around them before.
>
>Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
>
>

[Chuck]

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...

<Snip>
>
> Don't know how many guys, but here's one gal. They are very interesting, a
lot
> of fun, teach you about energy management, and ... when the engine fails
.... oh
> wait ... there isn't one!! How great is that??!!
>
> Assuming your cousin has a glider rating? or wants to get one? (what
> city/state?)
>
> --Shirley
>



His ratings are:

Airplane Single Engine Land
Airplane Multiengine Land
Instrument Airplane
Glider Aero Tow (Private Pilot)

I am an A&P, but no PP at this yet :(

Hopefully I will be working on that soon.

I am going to do some research on the gliders and what all is involved at
getting the glider certificate.

Haha... another thing that I noticed, the hanger floor was CLEAN!! haha :)

[BTIZ]

chuck... look up www.ssa.org

BT

"Chuck" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
>
> We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
> put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
>
> I have never been around them before.
>
> Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
>
>

[Chuck]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:pNkFb.36411$m83.15372@fed1read01...
> chuck... look up www.ssa.org
>
> BT
>

Thanks for the link...

[Ronald Gardner]

Working on my rating now. I find it very relaxing now that I am older. When
I started flying, speed was what I wanted. While I still go for speed a good
glider ride helps with the stress of life.

Ron

Chuck wrote:

> My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
>
> We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
> put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
>
> I have never been around them before.
>
> Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...

[Larry Dighera]

On 21 Dec 2003 16:15:41 GMT, (Shirley)
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Larry Dighera LDighera wrote:
>
>>It is a contest between the pilot and mother
>>nature. The idea is to spend more time in rising
>>air than sinking air, and thus gain and sustain
>>altitude. The pilot must mentally visualize the
>>movements of the air masses in his vicinity,
>>due to convective and orographic vertical
>>displacement, solely through interpreting
>>instrument indications and seat-of-the-pants cues.
>
>Great description!

Thanks.

>BTW, on good days during thermal season, it is possible to climb w/o banking in
>that extreme or needing a parachute. I climbed to 11K feet this summer in a
>1-26 from a 2000-ft tow and was never banked more than 30 degrees ... and the
>lift was still strong enough I could have continued, but didn't have oxygen.
>Sometimes exposing more of the sailplane surface to the lift (shallow bank)
>works as well or better, if you can do that and stay in the thermal ... depends
>on the thermal(s) and you don't know until you get in it. Sometimes you fly
>right out of it a few times before you figure out where you need to make your
>circles.
>
>Very, very fun.
>
>--Shirley


I know what you mean. Here's a little story that illustrates your
point:


Cumulonimbus Clouds Possess Awesome Power!

Having just obtained my glider license, I was cruising the local area
around El Mirage Airport in the Antelope Valley, California. I was
flying solo in the Southern California Soaring Association club's
venerable SGS 2 33 two-place trainer. It was a sweltering, sunny,
summer day in the Mojave Desert. Lift seemed to be everywhere; it was
almost like flying an engine-powered aircraft. Mother nature's
horsepower was smooth and quiet. I could just cruise around wherever
a whim took me and still sustain a climb without having to circle in a
thermal.

After a while, I was beginning to approach cloud-base, nearly 12,000
feet M.S.L. It was magical to see the land spread out for a hundred
miles in all directions. I hadn't noticed that the day had over
developed. The rest of the desert was still brilliantly lit in the
summer sun. What a joy.

As the ragged bottom of the cloud reached down toward me, and thin
wisps of condensed vapor passed my canopy, I began to think about
descending. Reluctantly I lowered the nose. Airspeed increased, but
I was still going up. What a day! I applied the dive brakes /
spoilers, and lowered the nose some more. These big, double surface,
spoilers are very effective at preventing excessive speed from
building up, I thought. I've never had a chance to try this before.
Aiming the nose of the ship 30 degrees toward the ground, I was really
diving now. But, I was still going up! My rapture faded. Hey, this
is starting to get serious.

With the pitch attitude nearly 40 degrees and full spoilers extended,
I couldn't think of anything else that would cause the sailplane to
descend. If the cloud engulfed me, what would I do?

I had no electrical system or gyro instruments. Thoughts of
techniques to use the compass as a directional gyro by heading south
flashed through my mind as I started to enter the ominous dark gray
cloud that stretched out above me. I've heard that it's possible to
stay right side up with only needle, ball, and airspeed reference, but
compass, yaw string, and airspeed? Doubtful at best.

Full realization of the situation finally dawned on me. I was being
sucked into a thunder storm! The latent heat of condensation can
drive these billowing monsters up 60,000 feet into the stratosphere
where the temperature is MINUS 50 degrees F, and there's not enough
oxygen to sustain life my life! This was really an emergency
situation! I felt helpless. What could I do to get down?

Now I was frightened. In a lightweight ship with all that wing area,
how was I going to extract myself from this? I had never spun a 2 33
before. Perhaps this was the time to get some parachute jumping
experience! Panic was beginning to immobilize me, and my ascent
continued.

I've experienced panic before. It is a warning signal to calm
yourself and start thinking. It's hopeless. I'm going to be spat out
the top of the cloud as a frozen snow ball, or have to jump wearing
this old military-surplus chute.

Calmly, the basic physics I had been taught came to my rescue: Lift =
Weight, Thrust = Drag. I need more drag, I thought. Quickly, I
entered cross-control input and began to slip to increase the frontal
area that the ship presented to the slipstream, but I still continued
upward into mother natures tenacious grip. It was white all around me
now; I could only see the earth if I looked straight down.

Hmm, . . . There is an excess of lift. The lift vector is pointing
up, at the cloud, which now nearly fully enveloped me. I need to
point it someplace else! Yes! That's it! I immediately banked over
60 degrees and began a steep spiral descent. It worked! The
variometer needle finally pointed toward mother earth. Hallelujah!

Just as I landed at the home field and extracted my sweat drenched
body from the cockpit, the cold wind of the thunder storm's telltale
first-gust nearly took the ship. That Cu Nim wasn't done with me yet.
Lightening lit the black sky and thunder boomed almost simultaneously.
In the ensuing cloud burst, I was grateful for the assistance of a
couple of club members who helped me walk the ship to its mooring
spot. The rain felt good.

This was a close encounter with mother nature's awesome power. She
had tried to eat me alive, and driven me from her lofty realm back to
the ground, hurled bolts in my direction, roared her thunder at me,
threatened to send my ship careening into a ball of useless aluminum
foil, and finally drenched me to the skin in a deluge of disgust.
What a woman!

It was a lessen well learned. Never let a cumulonimbus sneak up on
you; they masquerade as an overcast cloud deck when they stalk you.

Larry Dighera
CP ASEL, IR, Glider


Copyright L. Dighera 1997

[Jim Buckridge]

"Chuck" > wrote in message et>...
> My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
>
> We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today, and
> put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
> airworthiness certificate.
>
> Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
>
> I have never been around them before.
>
> Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...

I do! I just got my rating yesterday (Sunday 12/21). It wasn't an
add-on, which makest the rating even sweeter. Still grinning :-)

[Chuck]

"Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
om...
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
et>...
> > My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
> >
> > We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today,
and
> > put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
> > airworthiness certificate.
> >
> > Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
> >
> > I have never been around them before.
> >
> > Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
>
> I do! I just got my rating yesterday (Sunday 12/21). It wasn't an
> add-on, which makest the rating even sweeter. Still grinning :-)


Congrats!

So... you are not a PP, but are a glider pilot, huh?

Did you have any problems? Would it have been easier to become a PP, then a
glider pilot?

I'm thinking of getting a slider certificate...

[Robert Moore]

> So... you are not a PP, but are a glider pilot, huh?

I would suggest that he does hold a Private Pilot Certificate.

Bob Moore

[Casey Wilson]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Chuck" > wrote in message
> et>...
> > > My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
> > >
> > > We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it today,
> and
> > > put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with the
> > > airworthiness certificate.
> > >
> > > Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
> > >
> > > I have never been around them before.
> > >
> > > Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
> >
> > I do! I just got my rating yesterday (Sunday 12/21). It wasn't an
> > add-on, which makest the rating even sweeter. Still grinning :-)
>
>
> Congrats!
>
> So... you are not a PP, but are a glider pilot, huh?
>
> Did you have any problems? Would it have been easier to become a PP, then
a
> glider pilot?
>
> I'm thinking of getting a slider certificate...

Common misconception. He has a Private Pilot certificate. He is a
Private Pilot. Easier is a relative thing, it depends on a person's
aptitude.

[Chuck]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Chuck" > wrote in message
> > et>...
> > > > My cousin just bought a Schweizer 1 36 sailplane.
> > > >
> > > > We took it to the airport today where he is going to hanger it
today,
> > and
> > > > put her together so the FAA could give the stamp of approval with
the
> > > > airworthiness certificate.
> > > >
> > > > Looks like the sailplane could be alot of fun.
> > > >
> > > > I have never been around them before.
> > > >
> > > > Just wondering how many guys fly gliders...
> > >
> > > I do! I just got my rating yesterday (Sunday 12/21). It wasn't an
> > > add-on, which makest the rating even sweeter. Still grinning :-)
> >
> >
> > Congrats!
> >
> > So... you are not a PP, but are a glider pilot, huh?
> >
> > Did you have any problems? Would it have been easier to become a PP,
then
> a
> > glider pilot?
> >
> > I'm thinking of getting a slider certificate...
>
> Common misconception. He has a Private Pilot certificate. He is a
> Private Pilot. Easier is a relative thing, it depends on a person's
> aptitude.
>

OK... maybe I should have worded it differently.

You hold a Private Pilot Certificate with the Glider rating, but do not hold
an Airplane Single Engine Land or Airplane Multiengine Land rating?

[Jim Buckridge]

"Chuck" wrote:
> Congrats!
>
> So... you are not a PP, but are a glider pilot, huh?
>
> Did you have any problems? Would it have been easier to become a PP, then a
> glider pilot?
>
> I'm thinking of getting a slider certificate...

That's right... no powered just glider. I didn't have any problems
other than the weather. Also the operation was closed last winter
(Thanksgiving thru end of March) and then the NY ADIZ got in the way.
I had 13 solos (FAA minumum is 10). Compared to the others I know I
got my rating fairly quickly tow-count wise. But my 53 tows were
spread out over 17 months. An average of just over 3 per month.
Yuck!

I've been told that if I go for powered lessons now it'll be a breeze.
I think cost wise it's cheaper to get the glider rating first, and
then go on to powered. Would it have been easier to go powered first?
Maybe, but I found the cost to be prohibitive. I got my glider
private rating for less than $3000 including all costs... books,
exams, flights, etc.

[Larry Dighera]

On 23 Dec 2003 08:13:37 -0800, (Jim
Buckridge) wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>I got my glider private rating for less than $3000 including all costs...
>books, exams, flights, etc.

During the early '70s, the Southern California Soaring Association ran
a glider operation at El Mirage Dry Lake (Antelope Valley) under the
guidance of Leonard Sharp. We had a 2-33, 1-26, and Blanik B-13 (?),
that we aero-towed to El Mirage Dry Lake, and an old Buick with a
1,500' cable for cheap auto-tow launches to well over a 1,000' all day
long. Dues in the club ran $10/month, and auto-tows were $2/each.
Instruction was provided (gratis) by many very experienced and
competent CFIG members.

The SCSA cub operation was inexpensive, and provided the camaraderie
and manpower that is characteristic of soaring.

[Eric Greenwell]

Larry Dighera wrote:


> The spectrum of soaring meteorological conditions ranges from flat
> (little or no vertical movement of the air mass) to booming. During
> the latter, the pilot is nearly unable to prevent his ship from
> rising; it's like having a motor. On an average day, a pilot will
> spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
> involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
> thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
> sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
> Because this can require banks in excess of 60 degrees, occupants ware
> a parachute. Such long, constant high-G circling can adversely affect
> passengers of multi-place sailplanes, but the pilot will find it
> exhilarating. The sport of soaring adds another dimension to similar
> naturally powered sports such as sailing, surfing, and skiing...

Just in case you might get the idea from Larry that we all have our
blood at our feet from G loads, note that _most_ us use more like a 30
degree bank (g load hardly noticeable after a few flights), and can go
up just fine!

And for _most_ of us, wearing a parachute doesn't have anything to do
with circling in thermals. They aren't required except in contests, but
most private owners end up with one for various reasons, and wear it all
the time (sort of like wearing a seat belt in a car). Clubs aren't so
likely to use them while flying their gliders.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[K.P. Termaat]

Larry wrote:

>On an average day, a pilot will
> spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
> involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
> thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
> sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.

Why do you write "anticyclone" Larry. This would mean that all gliders would
circle righthanded to stay as close to the core as possible thereby using
the headwind of the thermal.
I have never found a meteorological reason to circle in a certain direction.
Most pilots circle lefthanded just because they were tought to do so in the
vicinity of their home field. However in x-country flights there is usually
no preference. In low situations the pilot usually circles in the direction
he feels most comfortable. Sometimes the gliders feels better when circling
to the right rather then to the left is my experience.

Karel, NL

"Eric Greenwell" > schreef in bericht
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
> > The spectrum of soaring meteorological conditions ranges from flat
> > (little or no vertical movement of the air mass) to booming.
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Eric Greenwell
> writes
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>
>> The spectrum of soaring meteorological conditions ranges from flat
>> (little or no vertical movement of the air mass) to booming. During
>> the latter, the pilot is nearly unable to prevent his ship from
>> rising; it's like having a motor. On an average day, a pilot will
>> spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
>> involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
>> thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
>> sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
>> Because this can require banks in excess of 60 degrees, occupants ware
>> a parachute. Such long, constant high-G circling can adversely affect
>> passengers of multi-place sailplanes, but the pilot will find it
>> exhilarating. The sport of soaring adds another dimension to similar
>> naturally powered sports such as sailing, surfing, and skiing...
>
>Just in case you might get the idea from Larry that we all have our
>blood at our feet from G loads, note that _most_ us use more like a 30
>degree bank (g load hardly noticeable after a few flights), and can go
>up just fine!
>
>And for _most_ of us, wearing a parachute doesn't have anything to do
>with circling in thermals. They aren't required except in contests, but
>most private owners end up with one for various reasons, and wear it
>all the time (sort of like wearing a seat belt in a car). Clubs aren't
>so likely to use them while flying their gliders.
>
Don't know about the states but we use parachutes in everything. As far
as I know everybody does in the UK.

Robin
--
Robin Birch

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:24 GMT, "K.P. Termaat" > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>Larry wrote:
>
>>On an average day, a pilot will
>> spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
>> involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
>> thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
>> sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
>
>Why do you write "anticyclone" Larry.

That was my recollection from my soaring experience in the early '70s.
However, it appears that the word 'cyclone' may have more correct now
that I have done some research:

The National Weather Service Glossary page here
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Phoenix/general/glossary/ has this to say:

ANTICYCLONE - A region of high atmospheric pressure around which
winds move in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere.
Generally associated with warm and dry weather

CYCLONE - An area of low pressure around which winds blow in a
counter-clockwise fashion in the northern hemisphere. Generally
associated with cool, wet and unsettled weather

On the other hand ...

>This would mean that all gliders would circle righthanded to stay as close
>to the core as possible thereby using the headwind of the thermal.

I'll defer to these sources:

http://www.rc-soar.com/tech/thermals.htm
Do thermals rotate?
They do, but not predictably. Even dust devils don't have a
preferred direction of rotation (see Stull, p.449). Thermals are
too small and too short-lived to be affected by the earth's
rotation (Coriolis force) or by the equator/pole thermal gradient.
Their rotation is determined by local terrain. Rotational velocity
in the core of a typical thermal is small compared to the vertical
velocity.


http://www.skynomad.com/articles/athermal10.html
THERMALS

Do Thermals Spin?
by Peter Gray

Of course, dust devils spin, so thermals probably do also, at
least when they're close to the ground. For many years, I was
convinced that dust devils rotated in random directions. However,
based on a few flights in northern Washington State, where I kept
more careful mental notes, I would guess that about 2/3 to 3/4 of
the dust devils there spin counterclockwise, in agreement with the
Coriolis Effect. Contrary to popular belief, the smaller-scale
equivalent, water going down a toilet or drain, is essentially
unaffected, and the rotation, if it is biased toward one spin
direction, is the result of the geometry of each such basin (check
it out for yourself!).

The dust devils formed by thermals seem to be just large
enough to be affected somewhat by the Coriolis Effect. If I have
the choice, I usually opt for circling against the dust devil's
rotation, most often to the right, in case this will produce a
better climb rate by reducing my circling ground speed, thus bank
angle and sinkrate.

However, when I have reversed direction several times in one
climb, I have rarely detected a significant advantage in one
direction. What little angular momentum thermals start with, they
seem to lose through drag in the surrounding air, and they
probably start with little spin anyway. As with water going down a
drain, very little spin momentum at a large radius can translate
to a rapid spin when the radius shrinks to that of a dust devil.

>I have never found a meteorological reason to circle in a certain direction.
>Most pilots circle lefthanded just because they were tought to do so in the
>vicinity of their home field. However in x-country flights there is usually
>no preference. In low situations the pilot usually circles in the direction
>he feels most comfortable. Sometimes the gliders feels better when circling
>to the right rather then to the left is my experience.
>
>Karel, NL

Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Robin Birch <robinb@r
>Don't know about the states but we use parachutes in everything. As far
>as I know everybody does in the UK.
>
>Robin

Everything except driving the tug.
--
Mike Lindsay

[K.P. Termaat]

Thanks Larry for your interesting respons with your links to the articles.

As a matter of fact most members of our National Team (my son is one of
them) tend to circle to the right when low. They don't in effect know why.
They say, and I agree, that it usually feels better in getting up again. So
Peter Gray may be right in saying that most of the thermals have the
tendency to rotate to the left in the northern hemisphere, especially when
low when still having small diameters. Coriolis may be the cause then. Would
be interesting to know the experience in the southern hemisphere.

Talking about a drain and water brings me to the idea of telling that when
low and looking for a thermal I always try to locate small ponds in dry
areas. It looks to me that the water vapor rising from these ponds is an
excellent means of starting a thermal. Water vapor is lighter then air, so
it increases the boyancy of the air over the pond and off it goes. Starting
at about ground level, circling to the right may then generally be the
better option. Any experience with this Larry?

Karel, NL


"Larry Dighera" > schreef in bericht
...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:24 GMT, "K.P. Termaat" > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Larry wrote:
> >
> >>On an average day, a pilot will
> >> spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
> >> involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
> >> thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
> >> sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
> >
> >Why do you write "anticyclone" Larry.
>
> That was my recollection from my soaring experience in the early '70s.
> However, it appears that the word 'cyclone' may have more correct now
> that I have done some research:
>
> The National Weather Service Glossary page here
> http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Phoenix/general/glossary/ has this to say:
>
> ANTICYCLONE - A region of high atmospheric pressure around which
> winds move in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere.
> Generally associated with warm and dry weather
>
> CYCLONE - An area of low pressure around which winds blow in a
> counter-clockwise fashion in the northern hemisphere. Generally
> associated with cool, wet and unsettled weather
>
> On the other hand ...
>
> >This would mean that all gliders would circle righthanded to stay as
close
> >to the core as possible thereby using the headwind of the thermal.
>
> I'll defer to these sources:
>
> http://www.rc-soar.com/tech/thermals.htm
> Do thermals rotate?
> They do, but not predictably. Even dust devils don't have a
> preferred direction of rotation (see Stull, p.449). Thermals are
> too small and too short-lived to be affected by the earth's
> rotation (Coriolis force) or by the equator/pole thermal gradient.
> Their rotation is determined by local terrain. Rotational velocity
> in the core of a typical thermal is small compared to the vertical
> velocity.
>
>
> http://www.skynomad.com/articles/athermal10.html
> THERMALS
>
> Do Thermals Spin?
> by Peter Gray
>
> Of course, dust devils spin, so thermals probably do also, at
> least when they're close to the ground. For many years, I was
> convinced that dust devils rotated in random directions. However,
> based on a few flights in northern Washington State, where I kept
> more careful mental notes, I would guess that about 2/3 to 3/4 of
> the dust devils there spin counterclockwise, in agreement with the
> Coriolis Effect. Contrary to popular belief, the smaller-scale
> equivalent, water going down a toilet or drain, is essentially
> unaffected, and the rotation, if it is biased toward one spin
> direction, is the result of the geometry of each such basin (check
> it out for yourself!).
>
> The dust devils formed by thermals seem to be just large
> enough to be affected somewhat by the Coriolis Effect. If I have
> the choice, I usually opt for circling against the dust devil's
> rotation, most often to the right, in case this will produce a
> better climb rate by reducing my circling ground speed, thus bank
> angle and sinkrate.
>
> However, when I have reversed direction several times in one
> climb, I have rarely detected a significant advantage in one
> direction. What little angular momentum thermals start with, they
> seem to lose through drag in the surrounding air, and they
> probably start with little spin anyway. As with water going down a
> drain, very little spin momentum at a large radius can translate
> to a rapid spin when the radius shrinks to that of a dust devil.
>
> >I have never found a meteorological reason to circle in a certain
direction.
> >Most pilots circle lefthanded just because they were tought to do so in
the
> >vicinity of their home field. However in x-country flights there is
usually
> >no preference. In low situations the pilot usually circles in the
direction
> >he feels most comfortable. Sometimes the gliders feels better when
circling
> >to the right rather then to the left is my experience.
> >
> >Karel, NL
>
> Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
> the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
>

[Charles Yeates]

Maybe it is simply an ergonomics thing --- I feel more comfortable
circling to the right in clutch situations simply because it is easier
to pull and adjust rather than push and adjust in right turns.

K.P. Termaat wrote:
> Thanks Larry for your interesting respons with your links to the articles.
>
> As a matter of fact most members of our National Team (my son is one of
> them) tend to circle to the right when low. They don't in effect know why.
> They say, and I agree, that it usually feels better in getting up again. So
> Peter Gray may be right in saying that most of the thermals have the
> tendency to rotate to the left in the northern hemisphere, especially when
> low when still having small diameters. Coriolis may be the cause then. Would
> be interesting to know the experience in the southern hemisphere.
>
> Talking about a drain and water brings me to the idea of telling that when
> low and looking for a thermal I always try to locate small ponds in dry
> areas. It looks to me that the water vapor rising from these ponds is an
> excellent means of starting a thermal. Water vapor is lighter then air, so
> it increases the boyancy of the air over the pond and off it goes. Starting
> at about ground level, circling to the right may then generally be the
> better option. Any experience with this Larry?
>
> Karel, NL
>
>
> "Larry Dighera" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>
>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:00:24 GMT, "K.P. Termaat" > wrote
>>in Message-Id: >:
>>
>>
>>>Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On an average day, a pilot will
>>>>spend a great deal of time attempting to "core" thermals. That
>>>>involves mentally visualizing the sailplane's position relative to the
>>>>thermal's vertical anticyclone column center, and guiding his
>>>>sailplane to circle as near to the center of it as he is able.
>>>
>>>Why do you write "anticyclone" Larry.
>>
>>That was my recollection from my soaring experience in the early '70s.
>>However, it appears that the word 'cyclone' may have more correct now
>>that I have done some research:
>>
>>The National Weather Service Glossary page here
>>http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Phoenix/general/glossary/ has this to say:
>>
>> ANTICYCLONE - A region of high atmospheric pressure around which
>> winds move in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere.
>> Generally associated with warm and dry weather
>>
>> CYCLONE - An area of low pressure around which winds blow in a
>> counter-clockwise fashion in the northern hemisphere. Generally
>> associated with cool, wet and unsettled weather
>>
>>On the other hand ...
>>
>>
>>>This would mean that all gliders would circle righthanded to stay as
>>
> close
>
>>>to the core as possible thereby using the headwind of the thermal.
>>
>>I'll defer to these sources:
>>
>>http://www.rc-soar.com/tech/thermals.htm
>> Do thermals rotate?
>> They do, but not predictably. Even dust devils don't have a
>> preferred direction of rotation (see Stull, p.449). Thermals are
>> too small and too short-lived to be affected by the earth's
>> rotation (Coriolis force) or by the equator/pole thermal gradient.
>> Their rotation is determined by local terrain. Rotational velocity
>> in the core of a typical thermal is small compared to the vertical
>> velocity.
>>
>>
>>http://www.skynomad.com/articles/athermal10.html
>> THERMALS
>>
>> Do Thermals Spin?
>> by Peter Gray
>>
>> Of course, dust devils spin, so thermals probably do also, at
>> least when they're close to the ground. For many years, I was
>> convinced that dust devils rotated in random directions. However,
>> based on a few flights in northern Washington State, where I kept
>> more careful mental notes, I would guess that about 2/3 to 3/4 of
>> the dust devils there spin counterclockwise, in agreement with the
>> Coriolis Effect. Contrary to popular belief, the smaller-scale
>> equivalent, water going down a toilet or drain, is essentially
>> unaffected, and the rotation, if it is biased toward one spin
>> direction, is the result of the geometry of each such basin (check
>> it out for yourself!).
>>
>> The dust devils formed by thermals seem to be just large
>> enough to be affected somewhat by the Coriolis Effect. If I have
>> the choice, I usually opt for circling against the dust devil's
>> rotation, most often to the right, in case this will produce a
>> better climb rate by reducing my circling ground speed, thus bank
>> angle and sinkrate.
>>
>> However, when I have reversed direction several times in one
>> climb, I have rarely detected a significant advantage in one
>> direction. What little angular momentum thermals start with, they
>> seem to lose through drag in the surrounding air, and they
>> probably start with little spin anyway. As with water going down a
>> drain, very little spin momentum at a large radius can translate
>> to a rapid spin when the radius shrinks to that of a dust devil.
>>
>>
>>>I have never found a meteorological reason to circle in a certain
>>
> direction.
>
>>>Most pilots circle lefthanded just because they were tought to do so in
>>
> the
>
>>>vicinity of their home field. However in x-country flights there is
>>
> usually
>
>>>no preference. In low situations the pilot usually circles in the
>>
> direction
>
>>>he feels most comfortable. Sometimes the gliders feels better when
>>
> circling
>
>>>to the right rather then to the left is my experience.
>>>
>>>Karel, NL
>>
>>Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
>>the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
>>
>
>
>

[Casey Wilson]

>>
> >>Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
> >>the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
> >>

The protocol I was taught was that unless you are first into the
thermal, you follow the left or right pattern of the gliders already there.
I've never had a preference of right or left. I was taught to turn into
whichever wingtip went up.
I was also taught that the most efficient technique, that is the
highest rate of altitude gain, is in a 45-degree bank turn hopefully
"coring" the thermal.
Up here in the Mojave Desert flying out of IYK, I've been in a couple of
10 Knot thermals but 5 to 6 is the most common. I can't ever remember any
kind of cyclonic rotation of any of them.
That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER want
to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
would definitely have avoided it in the first place.

[Eric Greenwell]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER want
> to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
> would definitely have avoided it in the first place.

No dust, no dust devil! But, of course, the thermal can still be there.
Coming into one low can be dangerous, but up here in eastern Washington
State, we use them frequently, especially on blue days. They are usually
quite tame. Only the biggest are potentially dangerous, and then only
when "near" the ground (say, less then 1500 feet AGL).

What you are flying makes a difference, too: a 1-26 is going to be
tossed around a lot more than an ASW 20 with ballast. Flying faster than
the normal thermalling speed helps quite a bit if the thermal is rough.


--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Rapoport]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Larry for your interesting respons with your links to the articles.
>
>
> Talking about a drain and water brings me to the idea of telling that when
> low and looking for a thermal I always try to locate small ponds in dry
> areas. It looks to me that the water vapor rising from these ponds is an
> excellent means of starting a thermal. Water vapor is lighter then air, so
> it increases the boyancy of the air over the pond and off it goes.
Starting
> at about ground level, circling to the right may then generally be the
> better option. Any experience with this Larry?
>
> Karel, NL
>
You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place
to start...but it won't work

Mike
MU-2

[K.P. Termaat]

My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity,
but no boomers and only low.
I'am talking about small shallow ponds in dry area's especially when the
ponds are surrounded by sandy grounds with higher vegetation like trees. The
buoyancy impuls from the evaporated water is apparently just good enough to
start the thermal which then sucks air from its heated up vicinity.
Has saved me many times when I was still flying my Pik20D or more recently
my DG800S.

Karel, NL
V-2cxT





"Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
ink.net...
>
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks Larry for your interesting respons with your links to the
articles.
> >
> >
> > Talking about a drain and water brings me to the idea of telling that
when
> > low and looking for a thermal I always try to locate small ponds in dry
> > areas. It looks to me that the water vapor rising from these ponds is an
> > excellent means of starting a thermal. Water vapor is lighter then air,
so
> > it increases the boyancy of the air over the pond and off it goes.
> Starting
> > at about ground level, circling to the right may then generally be the
> > better option. Any experience with this Larry?
> >
> > Karel, NL
> >
> You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
> vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
place
> to start...but it won't work
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[William W. Plummer]

I didn't receive any direction about which way to circle. Common sense
would rule out going against the traffic in an established pattern.

If there is a "standard" I wonder if it is related to the default for holds
(right) in airplanes. I used to wonder why the default for holds is to the
right but the default for VFR patterns at airports is left. --Bill



"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> > >>Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
> > >>the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
> > >>
>
> The protocol I was taught was that unless you are first into the
> thermal, you follow the left or right pattern of the gliders already
there.
> I've never had a preference of right or left. I was taught to turn
into
> whichever wingtip went up.
> I was also taught that the most efficient technique, that is the
> highest rate of altitude gain, is in a 45-degree bank turn hopefully
> "coring" the thermal.
> Up here in the Mojave Desert flying out of IYK, I've been in a couple
of
> 10 Knot thermals but 5 to 6 is the most common. I can't ever remember any
> kind of cyclonic rotation of any of them.
> That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER
want
> to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
> would definitely have avoided it in the first place.
>
>

[K.P. Termaat]

The "standard" is to circle to the left. Usually this is a must near glider
airfields, especially with a competition going on. This is for safety
reasons.
While on x-country and joining other gliders, the circle direction is given
by these other gliders in the same thermal.
When alone and hitting a thermal, the direction to turn into is where you
suspect the thermal to be. Some experience is required for that. It always
makes sense to circle towards the direction of rotation of the thermal if
there is any rotation. Some pilots have the idea that 2/3 of the thermals
rotate counter clockwise looking from below. I have the idea that this may
be true, but only at low altitudes. That's why quite a lot of pilots, and I
am one of them, circle to the right when low. Some other pilots think that
there is no rotation at all, except in very narrow dust devils which are
unsuitable to fly in.

Karel, NL
"William W. Plummer" > schreef in bericht
news:gCWHb.163786$8y1.490686@attbi_s52...
> I didn't receive any direction about which way to circle. Common sense
> would rule out going against the traffic in an established pattern.
>
> If there is a "standard" I wonder if it is related to the default for
holds
> (right) in airplanes. I used to wonder why the default for holds is to
the
> right but the default for VFR patterns at airports is left. --Bill
>
>
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >>
> > > >>Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders
in
> > > >>the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
> > > >>
> >
> > The protocol I was taught was that unless you are first into the
> > thermal, you follow the left or right pattern of the gliders already
> there.
> > I've never had a preference of right or left. I was taught to turn
> into
> > whichever wingtip went up.
> > I was also taught that the most efficient technique, that is the
> > highest rate of altitude gain, is in a 45-degree bank turn hopefully
> > "coring" the thermal.
> > Up here in the Mojave Desert flying out of IYK, I've been in a
couple
> of
> > 10 Knot thermals but 5 to 6 is the most common. I can't ever remember
any
> > kind of cyclonic rotation of any of them.
> > That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER
> want
> > to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
> > would definitely have avoided it in the first place.
> >
> >
>
>

[Kirk Stant]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity,
> but no boomers and only low.
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> ink.net...
> >
> > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
> > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
> place
> > to start...but it won't work
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >

Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.

Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?

What's the old saying about never saying never?

Kirk
LS6-b

[Mike Rapoport]

The moisture doesn't really help lift until the air is fuly saturated and
starts condensing releasing heat. Also, the air above the water is cooled
by evaporation and is cooler than the surrounding air. I will never say
never and I don't dispute your or others experience, but the explanation
doesn't make sense to me.

Mike
MU-2


"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
>...
> > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
humidity,
> > but no boomers and only low.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
contained in
> > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
> > place
> > > to start...but it won't work
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
>
> Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
>
> Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
>
> What's the old saying about never saying never?
>
> Kirk
> LS6-b

[Andy Durbin]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message et>...

> >
> You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
> vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place
> to start...but it won't work
>
> Mike
> MU-2


I hope you come and fly with us in Arizona some time. After a few
miles of cross country in the blue you may come to appreciate the
thermals triggered by the small ponds known as cattle tanks.

Been using them for over 15 years and no theororetical analysis will
convince me they dont work.


Andy (GY)

[Peter Creswick]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> The moisture doesn't really help lift until the air is fuly saturated and
> starts condensing releasing heat. Also, the air above the water is cooled
> by evaporation and is cooler than the surrounding air. I will never say
> never and I don't dispute your or others experience, but the explanation
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> humidity,
> > > but no boomers and only low.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> contained in
> > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
> > > place
> > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > > >
> >
> > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
> >
> > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> >
> > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> >
> > Kirk
> > LS6-b

Have seen similar effects over the small dams on farms here too. My idea is that the air over the
water cools by evaporating water out of the pond. In so doing it looses more heat and hence
contracts more (gets denser) than it gains buoyancy by water vapour increase, ie, it gets both
colder and denser overall than the surrounding surface air. As the dense pool of air becomes
greater, it spreads out, ie, sort of collapses on itself, and pushes out over the edges of the pond
/ dam, particularly down slope over the dam wall, creating a miniature equivalent of a valley wind
in the creek or down the slope, thus acting as a wedge trigger to lift the warm dry air off the
ground.

[Mike Rapoport]

I am not disputing the facts, I am disputing the explanation.

Mike
MU-2


"Andy Durbin" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
et>...
>
> > >
> > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained
in
> > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
place
> > to start...but it won't work
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
> I hope you come and fly with us in Arizona some time. After a few
> miles of cross country in the blue you may come to appreciate the
> thermals triggered by the small ponds known as cattle tanks.
>
> Been using them for over 15 years and no theororetical analysis will
> convince me they dont work.
>
>
> Andy (GY)

[Peter Creswick]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks Larry for your interesting respons with your links to the articles.
> >
> >
> > Talking about a drain and water brings me to the idea of telling that when
> > low and looking for a thermal I always try to locate small ponds in dry
> > areas. It looks to me that the water vapor rising from these ponds is an
> > excellent means of starting a thermal. Water vapor is lighter then air, so
> > it increases the boyancy of the air over the pond and off it goes.
> Starting
> > at about ground level, circling to the right may then generally be the
> > better option. Any experience with this Larry?
> >
> > Karel, NL
> >
> You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
> vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a place
> to start...but it won't work
>
> Mike
> MU-2

As I just posted in the "water vapour" thread, I think you have it all back the front.
Have seen similar effects over the small dams on farms here too. My idea is that the air over the
water cools by evaporating water out of the pond. In so doing it looses more heat and hence
contracts more (gets denser) than it gains buoyancy by water vapour increase, ie, it gets both
colder and denser overall than the surrounding surface air. As the dense pool of air becomes
greater, it spreads out, ie, sort of collapses on itself, and pushes out over the edges of the pond
/ dam, particularly down slope over the dam wall, creating a miniature equivalent of a valley wind
in the creek or down the slope, thus acting as a wedge trigger to lift the warm dry air off the
ground.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:11:24 GMT, "William W. Plummer"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<gCWHb.163786$8y1.490686@attbi_s52>:

>I used to wonder why the default for holds is to the
>right but the default for VFR patterns at airports is left. --Bill

[Brian Case]

That is how I found my best thermal ever. Flying my HP16T at a Region
8 contest in Eric's stomping grounds. It was about 2 hours into a 3
Hour post task and front started moving into the area. I decided that
getting home might score better than trying to make the minimum time
and landing out so I headed back to the airport under the cloud deck.
The Glide was totally smooth and I arrived back at the airport at
about 1500 AGL. (~3000MSL) on the far side of the airport the sun was
shining and I could see two large dust devils up on the hill from the
airport. As I approached closer dust devil I could see cheat grass,
tumble weeds and garbage bags floating around in it. I put my left
wing into the dust devil and turned hard left. My 10kt vario pegged. I
switched the scale to 20kts and it pegged again. It would occasionall
drop to as low as 16kts. I went from 3000MSL to 11000MSL in about 4
minutes averaging right at 20kts. I had to stop the climb due to cloud
bases. From there I did a final glide out to a turnpoint and back to
the airport to finish within a few minutes of the 3 hour minimum.
Looking out on the wing I could see cheat grass draped all along the
leading edge of the wing. I am sure it didn't due anything good to my
glide ratio. As I rolled to a stop at the airport all the Cheat grass
dropped off the wing onto the tarmac, which made for a great story
"There I was, so low that..."

Brian
HP16T



Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> > That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER want
> > to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
> > would definitely have avoided it in the first place.
>
> No dust, no dust devil! But, of course, the thermal can still be there.
> Coming into one low can be dangerous, but up here in eastern Washington
> State, we use them frequently, especially on blue days. They are usually
> quite tame. Only the biggest are potentially dangerous, and then only
> when "near" the ground (say, less then 1500 feet AGL).
>
> What you are flying makes a difference, too: a 1-26 is going to be
> tossed around a lot more than an ASW 20 with ballast. Flying faster than
> the normal thermalling speed helps quite a bit if the thermal is rough.

[Brian Case]

On the other hand I can't tell you how many times(numerous) I
intercepted a dust devil at 1000-1500 AGL and climbed out at less then
1kt or even did not climb. Most times however I get 3-6 kts out of
them. I have see dust devils go to 7-8000 feet up. Hate to tell the
one gentleman this that wouldn't fly into a dust devil, but if he flys
using thermals he is just flying into dustless dust devils, As far as
I can tell the only difference is if it is lifting air over an area
were it can pick dust up or not.

Brian
HP16T



Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> > That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER want
> > to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
> > would definitely have avoided it in the first place.
>
> No dust, no dust devil! But, of course, the thermal can still be there.
> Coming into one low can be dangerous, but up here in eastern Washington
> State, we use them frequently, especially on blue days. They are usually
> quite tame. Only the biggest are potentially dangerous, and then only
> when "near" the ground (say, less then 1500 feet AGL).
>
> What you are flying makes a difference, too: a 1-26 is going to be
> tossed around a lot more than an ASW 20 with ballast. Flying faster than
> the normal thermalling speed helps quite a bit if the thermal is rough.

[Andrew Sarangan]

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message >...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low humidity,
> > but no boomers and only low.
> >
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is contained in
> > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
> place
> > > to start...but it won't work
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> > >
>
> Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
>
> Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
>
> What's the old saying about never saying never?
>
> Kirk
> LS6-b


The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
water.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
> (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
>...
> > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
>...
> > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
humidity,
> > > but no boomers and only low.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
contained in
> > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
darkest
> > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find
a
> > place
> > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > MU-2
> > > >
> >
> > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
> >
> > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> >
> > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> >
> > Kirk
> > LS6-b
>
>
> The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> water.

Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated
air (ie in clouds)

Mike
MU-2

[Casey Wilson]

"Brian Case" > wrote in message
om...
> On the other hand I can't tell you how many times(numerous) I
> intercepted a dust devil at 1000-1500 AGL and climbed out at less then
> 1kt or even did not climb. Most times however I get 3-6 kts out of
> them. I have see dust devils go to 7-8000 feet up. Hate to tell the
> one gentleman this that wouldn't fly into a dust devil, but if he flys
> using thermals he is just flying into dustless dust devils, As far as
> I can tell the only difference is if it is lifting air over an area
> were it can pick dust up or not.

We are apparently sharing different definitions of "dust devils." The
ones that rage across the part of the country I fly mostly do not fit the
structure of a thermal.
Thermals, at least where I am, are rising volumes of air created by
differential temperatures on the surface. One of our best local thermal
engines is the black paved surface of Runway 10/28 at IYK. The equipment
parking lot for the highway maintenance yard is another. The location of
these is pretty constant and reasonably predictable and reasonably benign.
Dust devils on the other hand, while they may begin at convective
sources, are cyclonic whirlwinds that travel laterally across the ground,
sometimes for miles. DDs in our area are typically less than five meters in
diameter. One monster dust devil that went across a portable weather station
at the Naval Air Warfare Center spun the anemometer over 80 knots before it
ripped the mast apart. We watched that one travel about ten miles. On
another occasion, a monster went across a mobile home park and took the roof
off a home and dissassembled tool sheds like card houses.

[Marc Ramsey]

Casey Wilson wrote:
> Dust devils on the other hand, while they may begin at convective
> sources, are cyclonic whirlwinds that travel laterally across the ground,
> sometimes for miles. DDs in our area are typically less than five meters in
> diameter. One monster dust devil that went across a portable weather station
> at the Naval Air Warfare Center spun the anemometer over 80 knots before it
> ripped the mast apart. We watched that one travel about ten miles. On
> another occasion, a monster went across a mobile home park and took the roof
> off a home and dissassembled tool sheds like card houses.

Yeah, those are the kind of dust devils I look for 8^)

I remember one I saw in a valley north of Tonopah, when I was down low
looking for lift. It had one huge central column and six smaller ones
twisting around it. I could see huge pieces of sagebrush literally
getting blown out of its path. I pulled into it at roughly 1500 feet
AGL, and centered a 14 knot climb with dust and twigs flying all around
me. I was at 18000 feet in what seemed like a moment. Even at that
altitude, there was plenty of dust, and looking down into was like
looking into the maw of a huge snake that stretched all the way back
down to the ground.

You don't know what you're missing 8^)

Marc

[Dave Nadler YO]

I've seen this effect many times in Australia. Kept finding
lift over small irrigation ponds (altitude several hundred
feet). Decided to do an experiment whilst awaiting a buddy
who was interminable slow to get airborne. There was an
irrigation pond about 1km from the airfield. After losing
sufficient altitude doing aero, spoilered down to several
hundred feet over this pond, then climbed out and repeated
the procedure. Four or five times (like I said, he's slow).

The interesting features here (and in Arizona) are:
- very dry air, and
- shallow irrigation tank/pond subject to good heating (warm water)
Don't know that I understand the physics, but extremely
consistent.

Beaver Pond Lift is however a different phenom...

Best Wishes for 2004 to all, Dave "YO"


Peter Creswick > wrote in message >...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> > The moisture doesn't really help lift until the air is fuly saturated and
> > starts condensing releasing heat. Also, the air above the water is cooled
> > by evaporation and is cooler than the surrounding air. I will never say
> > never and I don't dispute your or others experience, but the explanation
> > doesn't make sense to me.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
> > "Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> humidity,
> > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> contained in
> > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest, darkest
> > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find a
> place
> > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > MU-2
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
> > >
> > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > >
> > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > LS6-b
>
> Have seen similar effects over the small dams on farms here too. My idea is that the air over the
> water cools by evaporating water out of the pond. In so doing it looses more heat and hence
> contracts more (gets denser) than it gains buoyancy by water vapour increase, ie, it gets both
> colder and denser overall than the surrounding surface air. As the dense pool of air becomes
> greater, it spreads out, ie, sort of collapses on itself, and pushes out over the edges of the pond
> / dam, particularly down slope over the dam wall, creating a miniature equivalent of a valley wind
> in the creek or down the slope, thus acting as a wedge trigger to lift the warm dry air off the
> ground.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:02:43 GMT, "Casey Wilson" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>>>
>> >>Agreed. Circling direction is more often dictated by other gliders in
>> >>the thermal than meteorological phenomena and physics.
>> >>
>
> The protocol I was taught was that unless you are first into the
>thermal, you follow the left or right pattern of the gliders already there.
> I've never had a preference of right or left. I was taught to turn into
>whichever wingtip went up.

Turning into the rising wing is intuitive, and logical. I'm only able
to think of a couple of alternative techniques, but I would expect
neither of them to provide superior results.

> I was also taught that the most efficient technique, that is the
>highest rate of altitude gain, is in a 45-degree bank turn hopefully
>"coring" the thermal.

That is consistent with what has been written in the past in this
newsgroup concerning the optimum bank in a turn-back to the airport
maneuver.

> Up here in the Mojave Desert flying out of IYK, I've been in a couple of
>10 Knot thermals but 5 to 6 is the most common. I can't ever remember any
>kind of cyclonic rotation of any of them.
>
> That said, I did once, inadvertantly fly into a dust-devil. I NEVER want
>to do that again. If I had seen any dust indication that it was there I
>would definitely have avoided it in the first place.
>

My soaring experience was also in the Mojave Desert, Antelope Valley
area around El Mirage and toward the east and west of there. In the
summer, dust-devils were as plentiful as columns at the Forum. They
visibly marked areas above which the chance of encountering lift was
virtually assured.

I'd be interested in hearing more about your dust-devil encounter.

[zxc]

ny
Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Dec 2003 08:13:37 -0800, (Jim
> Buckridge) wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >I got my glider private rating for less than $3000 including all costs...
> >books, exams, flights, etc.
>
> During the early '70s, the Southern California Soaring Association ran
> a glider operation at El Mirage Dry Lake (Antelope Valley) under the
> guidance of Leonard Sharp. We had a 2-33, 1-26, and Blanik B-13 (?),
> that we aero-towed to El Mirage Dry Lake, and an old Buick with a
> 1,500' cable for cheap auto-tow launches to well over a 1,000' all day
> long. Dues in the club ran $10/month, and auto-tows were $2/each.
> Instruction was provided (gratis) by many very experienced and
> competent CFIG members.
>
> The SCSA cub operation was inexpensive, and provided the camaraderie
> and manpower that is characteristic of soaring.

[Aspley Nursery]

As a horticulturalist and a glider pilot, perhaps the answer is that the
moist ground acts as more of a heat sink into the ground, up until it
achieves a full heat load and then dissipates this in the afternoon, more so
than the surrounding dry ground. Vegetation on a west facing slope is a
great source in the afternoons out our way.

I have found lift in moister areas, but much more so in the afternoons,
mainly when lower in the convection zone and certainly not in the mornings.
Try walking around a wet area at 10am and 6pm and compare the relative heat
to dry areas.

The other issue that could be occurring is the bubble of cool air over the
moist ground could be acting as a trigger point, for the drifting heated air
from the surrounding dry areas. We all know of the tremendously small things
that can act as a trigger.

As to lapse rates the air is not saturated till cloud base, unless of course
a fog is present (mornings) which is a different case than trying to get a
thermal.

Robert P
Nimbus 2C

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> >...
> > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> humidity,
> > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> contained in
> > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
> darkest
> > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to
find
> a
> > > place
> > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > MU-2
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
> > >
> > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > >
> > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > LS6-b
> >
> >
> > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> > water.
>
> Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated
> air (ie in clouds)
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>

[goneill]

"goneill" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Aspley Nursery" > wrote in message
> ...
> Robert P
> Nimbus 2C
>
> I see in your sig Nimbus 2 C
> That model is one I have been considering for some time.
> Do you have any comments on it in comparison to other open class
> gliders and in particular its approaches with the ventus style brakes.
> Because there are none here I have some contrary comments from
> other club members and even considered just getting a ASW20
> instead .
> The main reason I have been looking at it is most of the better pilots
> are flying ventus's 18m but my budget only runs to an older open class
> How does the 2c keep up with them all be it with a bit of water on to
> get the wing loading up.The main "anti" comment is that it won't keep
> up with its thicker aerofoil section and thus negating the main reason
> why I am considering one.
> gary
>
>
>
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message .net>...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> >...
> > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> humidity,
> > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> contained in
> > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
> darkest
> > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to find
> a
> place
> > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > MU-2
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered around.
> > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if too
> > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and it
> > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a thermal.
> > >
> > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little effect
> > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > >
> > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > > LS6-b
> >
> >
> > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> > water.
>
> Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to saturated
> air (ie in clouds)
>
> Mike
> MU-2


OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?

[K.P. Termaat]

Andrew, read the numerical support of Mike Borgelt's statement below which I
posted a few days ago.


Mike Borgelt wrote:
> Water vapour has a molecular weight of a bit over 18 and dry air a bit
> > more than 28. Water vapour at the same pressure as the air around it
> > is considerably less dense than dry air. More water vapour= more
> > bouyancy.

Just a simple approach with rough figures to support Mike's statement and
hopefully to trigger the "smart guys".
At atmospheric pressure (say 1013 hPa) and at 20 C° the density of dry air
is about 1.22 kg/m3. Pure water vapor at atmospheric pressure has a density
of 18/28 x 1.22 = 0.785 kg/m3, or 785 g/m3.
Air is saturated with water vapor when it contains 25 g/m3 at 20 C°.
Assume a relative humidity of say 30% on a dry day. Then one cubic meter of
air contains 0.3 x 25 = 7.5 g of water vapor and the air has then a density
of 1.2159 kg/m3. Assume further that over a shallow pond the humidity of the
air increases to 60% due to a serious evaporation from the pond. Then the
air directly over the pond will contain 0.6 x 25 = 15.0 g/m3 corresponding
to an air density of 1.2118 kg/m3.
So one cubic meter of air having 60% humidity is 1.2159 - 1.2118= 0.0041 kg
lighter then air with a humidity of 30%. This 4.1 g/m3 does not look much,
but compare this figure with the decrease in density when air is heated up.
The temperature coëfficiënt of air is 0.0044 kg/m3 per °C at 20 °C, meaning
that when air is heated up by one degree its density decreases with 4.4
g/m3.
So one may conclude that changing the relative humidity of air from 30% to
60% has the same effect on buoyancy as raising the temperature of air by 1
°C.
So it may be worthwhile indeed to search for a thermal over a shallow pond
in a dry area when low as I stated earlier.

Karel, NL


"Andrew Sarangan" > schreef in bericht
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net>...
> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> > humidity,
> > > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> > contained in
> > > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
> > darkest
> > > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to
find
> > a
> > place
> > > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
around.
> > > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if
too
> > > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and
it
> > > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
thermal.
> > > >
> > > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
effect
> > > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > > >
> > > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > > LS6-b
> > >
> > >
> > > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> > > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> > > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> > > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> > > water.
> >
> > Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
saturated
> > air (ie in clouds)
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
> OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
> still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net>...
> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> > humidity,
> > > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> > contained in
> > > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
> > darkest
> > > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to
find
> > a
> > place
> > > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
> > > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
> > > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
around.
> > > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if
too
> > > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and
it
> > > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
> > > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
> > > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
thermal.
> > > >
> > > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
> > > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
effect
> > > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > > >
> > > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > > LS6-b
> > >
> > >
> > > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> > > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> > > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> > > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> > > water.
> >
> > Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
saturated
> > air (ie in clouds)
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
>
>
> OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
> still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?

No. The reason that saturated air lapses at a slower rate is that latent
energy is being released as the water vapor changes to liquid, that is the
only reason.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't disagree with your math but the air over the water is also cooler
than the air over the dry land adjacent to the pond.

Mike
MU-2

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew, read the numerical support of Mike Borgelt's statement below which
I
> posted a few days ago.
>
>
> Mike Borgelt wrote:
> > Water vapour has a molecular weight of a bit over 18 and dry air a bit
> > > more than 28. Water vapour at the same pressure as the air around it
> > > is considerably less dense than dry air. More water vapour= more
> > > bouyancy.
>
> Just a simple approach with rough figures to support Mike's statement and
> hopefully to trigger the "smart guys".
> At atmospheric pressure (say 1013 hPa) and at 20 C° the density of dry air
> is about 1.22 kg/m3. Pure water vapor at atmospheric pressure has a
density
> of 18/28 x 1.22 = 0.785 kg/m3, or 785 g/m3.
> Air is saturated with water vapor when it contains 25 g/m3 at 20 C°.
> Assume a relative humidity of say 30% on a dry day. Then one cubic meter
of
> air contains 0.3 x 25 = 7.5 g of water vapor and the air has then a
density
> of 1.2159 kg/m3. Assume further that over a shallow pond the humidity of
the
> air increases to 60% due to a serious evaporation from the pond. Then the
> air directly over the pond will contain 0.6 x 25 = 15.0 g/m3 corresponding
> to an air density of 1.2118 kg/m3.
> So one cubic meter of air having 60% humidity is 1.2159 - 1.2118= 0.0041
kg
> lighter then air with a humidity of 30%. This 4.1 g/m3 does not look
much,
> but compare this figure with the decrease in density when air is heated
up.
> The temperature coëfficiënt of air is 0.0044 kg/m3 per °C at 20 °C,
meaning
> that when air is heated up by one degree its density decreases with 4.4
> g/m3.
> So one may conclude that changing the relative humidity of air from 30% to
> 60% has the same effect on buoyancy as raising the temperature of air by
1
> °C.
> So it may be worthwhile indeed to search for a thermal over a shallow pond
> in a dry area when low as I stated earlier.
>
> Karel, NL
>
>
> "Andrew Sarangan" > schreef in bericht
> om...
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net>...
> > > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
> > > humidity,
> > > > > > but no boomers and only low.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in
bericht
> > > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> > > contained in
> > > > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
> > > darkest
> > > > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard
to
> find
> > > a
> > > place
> > > > > > > to start...but it won't work
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > MU-2
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the
desert
> > > > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly
over
> > > > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
> around.
> > > > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if
> too
> > > > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond
and
> it
> > > > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to
the
> > > > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with
the
> > > > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
> thermal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are
death
> > > > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
> effect
> > > > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > > LS6-b
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
> > > > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> > > > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> > > > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> > > > water.
> > >
> > > Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
> saturated
> > > air (ie in clouds)
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > MU-2
> >
> >
> > OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
> > still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?
>
>

[Big John]

Mike

OT-- Can you give us a short disseration on the MU-2. I have seen a
lot of odd accidents with it and Japan quit making it years ago vs
correcting some of the problems as I recall????

Big John

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:05:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>
>"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net>...
>> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> > > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
>> > >...
>> > > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> > > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very low
>> > humidity,
>> > > > > but no boomers and only low.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in bericht
>> > > > > ink.net...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
>> > contained in
>> > > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest, dryest,
>> > darkest
>> > > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard to
>find
>> > a
>> > place
>> > > > > > to start...but it won't work
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > > MU-2
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the desert
>> > > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly over
>> > > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
>around.
>> > > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works; if
>too
>> > > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond and
>it
>> > > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to the
>> > > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with the
>> > > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
>thermal.
>> > > >
>> > > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are death
>> > > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
>effect
>> > > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
>> > > >
>> > > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
>> > > >
>> > > > Kirk
>> > > > LS6-b
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air it
>> > > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
>> > > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
>> > > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
>> > > water.
>> >
>> > Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
>saturated
>> > air (ie in clouds)
>> >
>> > Mike
>> > MU-2
>>
>>
>> OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
>> still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?
>
>No. The reason that saturated air lapses at a slower rate is that latent
>energy is being released as the water vapor changes to liquid, that is the
>only reason.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>

[Mike Rapoport]

There are indeed a number of odd accidents with no particular pattern. I
have read all the reports. Seven died after taking off over gross into
known severe icing with non-functioning boots (they knew this when they
departed). They didn't get very far. Another was lost after a NTS inflight
test failed. Why they tried it at night(!!!) is beyond me. Another flew
into the ground at Martha's Vineyard. He was 800' below the GS at the outer
marker. The fatal accident rate is about the same as the King Air 90 series
according to the last data I saw, so I guess that not all the bonehead
pilots are flying MU-2s.

Mitsubishi stopped making the airplanes in 1982 when the bottom fell out of
the aircraft market although they called planes built in 1982 and sold in
1985 "1985 models". The MU-2 enjoys excellent support from Mitusbishi even
though it has been out of production for 18 yrs.

The airframe was built in Japan and shipped to Texas where it was assembled
with US made engines, props, avionics and virtually everything else. The
plane had 70% US content. The airplanes are really well built, much better
than the competition. The MU-2 offers the best price/performance in its
class by a wide margin. It is substantially faster AND substantially
cheaper than comparable King Airs or Cheyennes.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Mike
>
> OT-- Can you give us a short disseration on the MU-2. I have seen a
> lot of odd accidents with it and Japan quit making it years ago vs
> correcting some of the problems as I recall????
>
> Big John
>
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:05:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net>...
> >> > "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> >> > om...
> >> > > (Kirk Stant) wrote in message
> >> > >...
> >> > > > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message
> >> > >...
> >> > > > > My experience is that it works, especially on days with very
low
> >> > humidity,
> >> > > > > but no boomers and only low.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "Mike Rapoport" > schreef in
bericht
> >> > > > > ink.net...
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
> >> > contained in
> >> > > > > > vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest,
dryest,
> >> > darkest
> >> > > > > > surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard
to
> >find
> >> > a
> >> > place
> >> > > > > > to start...but it won't work
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Mike
> >> > > > > > MU-2
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the
desert
> >> > > > areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly
over
> >> > > > small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
> >around.
> >> > > > A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works;
if
> >too
> >> > > > low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond
and
> >it
> >> > > > will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to
the
> >> > > > fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with
the
> >> > > > little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
> >thermal.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are
death
> >> > > > to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
> >effect
> >> > > > on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What's the old saying about never saying never?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Kirk
> >> > > > LS6-b
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air
it
> >> > > is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
> >> > > same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
> >> > > shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
> >> > > water.
> >> >
> >> > Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
> >saturated
> >> > air (ie in clouds)
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> > MU-2
> >>
> >>
> >> OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
> >> still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?
> >
> >No. The reason that saturated air lapses at a slower rate is that latent
> >energy is being released as the water vapor changes to liquid, that is
the
> >only reason.
> >
> >Mike
> >MU-2
> >
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
k.net...
> There are indeed a number of odd accidents with no particular pattern. I
> have read all the reports. Seven died after taking off over gross into
> known severe icing with non-functioning boots (they knew this when they
> departed). They didn't get very far. Another was lost after a NTS
inflight
> test failed. Why they tried it at night(!!!) is beyond me. Another flew
> into the ground at Martha's Vineyard. He was 800' below the GS at the
outer
> marker. The fatal accident rate is about the same as the King Air 90
series
> according to the last data I saw, so I guess that not all the bonehead
> pilots are flying MU-2s.
>
> Mitsubishi stopped making the airplanes in 1982 when the bottom fell out
of
> the aircraft market although they called planes built in 1982 and sold in
> 1985 "1985 models". The MU-2 enjoys excellent support from Mitusbishi
even
> though it has been out of production for 18 yrs.
>
> The airframe was built in Japan and shipped to Texas where it was
assembled
> with US made engines, props, avionics and virtually everything else. The
> plane had 70% US content. The airplanes are really well built, much
better
> than the competition. The MU-2 offers the best price/performance in its
> class by a wide margin. It is substantially faster AND substantially
> cheaper than comparable King Airs or Cheyennes.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > There are indeed a number of odd accidents with no particular pattern.
I
> > have read all the reports. Seven died after taking off over gross into
> > known severe icing with non-functioning boots (they knew this when they
> > departed). They didn't get very far. Another was lost after a NTS
> inflight
> > test failed. Why they tried it at night(!!!) is beyond me. Another
flew
> > into the ground at Martha's Vineyard. He was 800' below the GS at the
> outer
> > marker. The fatal accident rate is about the same as the King Air 90
> series
> > according to the last data I saw, so I guess that not all the bonehead
> > pilots are flying MU-2s.
> >
> > Mitsubishi stopped making the airplanes in 1982 when the bottom fell out
> of
> > the aircraft market although they called planes built in 1982 and sold
in
> > 1985 "1985 models". The MU-2 enjoys excellent support from Mitusbishi
> even
> > though it has been out of production for 18 yrs.
> >
> > The airframe was built in Japan and shipped to Texas where it was
> assembled
> > with US made engines, props, avionics and virtually everything else.
The
> > plane had 70% US content. The airplanes are really well built, much
> better
> > than the competition. The MU-2 offers the best price/performance in its
> > class by a wide margin. It is substantially faster AND substantially
> > cheaper than comparable King Airs or Cheyennes.
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
>
> Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
>
>
There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I noticed is
that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to know
that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight hour
and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
inaccurate..

Mike
MU-2

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
> >
> >
> There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I noticed is
> that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to know
> that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
hour
> and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
> inaccurate..
>
> Mike
> MU-2

You dare to argue with experts?

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> You dare to argue with experts?

You forgot the smiley in that post. You obviously can't be serious.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>

> >
> > Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
> >
> >
> There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I noticed is
> that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to know
> that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
hour
> and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
> inaccurate..

Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.

[Mike Rapoport]

Like what?

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
>
> > >
> > > Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
> > >
> > >
> > There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I noticed
is
> > that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
know
> > that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
> hour
> > and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
> > inaccurate..
>
> Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Like what?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>

Post a detailed breakout of how you arrived at your conclusion, then we can
retrieve their numbers and track the differences.

("I'm a pilot, Jim, not a mind-reader").

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I
noticed
> is
> > > that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
> know
> > > that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per flight
> > hour
> > > and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
> > > inaccurate..
> >
> > Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is also
larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex to
maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the same,
so the reserves are identical.

So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more maitenance
AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.

There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher reserves.

The chart is worthless.

Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

Mike
MU-2


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Like what?
> >
> > Mike
> > MU-2
> >
>
> Post a detailed breakout of how you arrived at your conclusion, then we
can
> retrieve their numbers and track the differences.
>
> ("I'm a pilot, Jim, not a mind-reader").
>
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorta!! http://www.jetbrokers.com/tpmu.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > There are some problems with this data. The first thing that I
> noticed
> > is
> > > > that a Merlin has lower operating cost than a Marquise. I happen to
> > know
> > > > that a Merlin uses more fuel, has twice the maitenance cost per
flight
> > > hour
> > > > and is slower. It can't possible have a lower DOC, so the data is
> > > > inaccurate..
> > >
> > > Maybe they're taking more into account than YOU are.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
> reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
> considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
also
> larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
> Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
> MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex to
> maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
> hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
same,
> so the reserves are identical.
>
> So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more maitenance
> AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.
>
> There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
> 400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
> MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher reserves.

I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
$635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip props.

> The chart is worthless.
>
> Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?

I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

BTW, are you always so pompous?

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.

That's unfortunate. You should apply some of that skepticism to other
self-proclaimed experts as well.

> BTW, are you always so pompous?

"Pompous"? Mike has been simply forthright about his KNOWLEDGE regarding
the topic at hand. He has first-hand experience with the Marquise model,
and you and I have no reason to doubt the investigation he did regarding the
Merlin prior to his purchase of his airplane.

If Mike says the Merlin costs more to operate than the Marquise, you'd be a
fool to disagree if you have no personal, first-hand experience to show
otherwise. As far as "pompous" goes, seems to me you're the one behaving
pompously, if anyone is. You are basing your entire argument with Mike on
numbers published by unverified sources, and yet you refuse to believe that
he might have a point. That's arrogance at its finest.

Yes, you should question EVERYTHING you read on the Internet (and
elsewhere), but in this case, you are giving the benefit of the doubt to
exactly the wrong source of information. If you wish to doubt both, fine.
But if you're only going to doubt one, you picked the wrong horse.

Pete

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
> > reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
> > considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
> also
> > larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
> > Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is on
> > MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex
to
> > maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the maitenance
> > hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
> same,
> > so the reserves are identical.
> >
> > So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
maitenance
> > AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.
> >
> > There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The Cheyenne
> > 400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It burns
> > MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
reserves.
>
> I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
> $635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip props.
>
> > The chart is worthless.
> >
> > Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?
>
> I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.
>
> BTW, are you always so pompous?
>

Why are you so arrogant? You argue about things that you know nothing
about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?


Mike
MU-2

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:30:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Why are you so arrogant?

Probably because he just killed a six-pack. :-)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > > They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and overhaul
> > > reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I was
> > > considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin is
> > also
> > > larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both airplanes.
> > > Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is
on
> > > MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more complex
> to
> > > maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the
maitenance
> > > hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are the
> > same,
> > > so the reserves are identical.
> > >
> > > So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
> maitenance
> > > AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.
> > >
> > > There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The
Cheyenne
> > > 400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It
burns
> > > MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
> reserves.
> >
> > I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595 to
> > $635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip
props.
> >
> > > The chart is worthless.
> > >
> > > Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?
> >
> > I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.
> >
> > BTW, are you always so pompous?
> >
>
> Why are you so arrogant?


You answer first...especially since you're the one who
s arrogant. I raise a question and you start patronizing.

> You argue about things that you know nothing
> about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?

I don't..I manage one. So, answer the question -- why are YOU so arrogant,
patronizing, condescending...

How many people did you have to screwover to get your MU-2?

[Mike Rapoport]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> .net...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > > They (and everybody else) defines DOC as fuel, maitenance and
overhaul
> > > > reserves. I know what the fuel consumption is on both aircraft (I
was
> > > > considering buying a Merlin and have the flight manual. The Merlin
is
> > > also
> > > > larger and heavier), I know what the maitenance is on both
airplanes.
> > > > Having owned/flown a Marquise for 1200hrs bviously I know what it is
> on
> > > > MU-2s and I researched it on Merlins. The Merlin is much more
complex
> > to
> > > > maintain than a MU-2 which is why it requires about twice the
> maitenance
> > > > hours per flight hour. Then engines and props for both planes are
the
> > > same,
> > > > so the reserves are identical.
> > > >
> > > > So, in conclusion; the Merlin uses more fuel AND requires more
> > maitenance
> > > > AND the reserves are identical. The Merlin's DOC HAS to be higher.
> > > >
> > > > There are numerous other examples of errors in the chart. The
> Cheyenne
> > > > 400LS is shown as less than either the Merlin or the Marquise. It
> burns
> > > > MUCH more fuel AND MUCH higher maitenance costs AND MUCH higher
> > reserves.
> > >
> > > I know a TC 1000 doesn't cost $721 an hour; more in the range of $595
to
> > > $635 depending on fuel costs. Also, lower fuel costs with the Q-Tip
> props.
> > >
> > > > The chart is worthless.
> > > >
> > > > Do you believe all infomation that you read on the net?
> > >
> > > I'm only skeptical about stuff YOU post.
> > >
> > > BTW, are you always so pompous?
> > >
> >
> > Why are you so arrogant?
>
>
> You answer first...especially since you're the one who
> s arrogant. I raise a question and you start patronizing.
>

I'll be glad to answer if you can explain what is arrogant about what I have
said. You challenged me with bad information. I called you and presented
an argument based on verifyable facts and simple logic. You can't refute my
argument and so you called me pompus.


> > You argue about things that you know nothing
> > about. How long have you owned a Commander 1000?
>
> I don't..I manage one.

IF that is true, THEN it should have been obvious that the data you
referenced was flawed. So, are you lying about managing somebody's
Commander or did you post information that you knew to be flawed just to
pick a fight with me? Either one makes you a pretty impressive individual

>So, answer the question -- why are YOU so arrogant,
> patronizing, condescending...

..
If, by arogant, patronizing and condescending you mean that I will challenge
incorrect information presented as facts, then I would say that it is just
my nature. If you are referring to the Webster's definitions of those
words, then I would argue that you couldn't know if I am any of those things
based on the limited information of me that you have availible.


> How many people did you have to screwover to get your MU-2?


No idea. I guess that I am just barely smart enough that I don't have to
manage other people's airplanes for a living.

Mike
MU-2