THE AVIATORS Soaring Episode

[Charlie Papa[_2_]]

Here, from Season 4, Episode 11, is the segment on our sport, shot at York Soaring Association near Toronto last summer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5a0tUPxzl0#t=41

We believe they will return to York next summer for another segment. We have suggested to them:
-WSPE (Women's Soaring Pilot's Association) annual seminar, this year July 21 - 25 (http://www.womensoaring.org/?p=seminar)
-FREEDOM'S WINGS CANADA York is home to the first and largest Chapter in Canada
- TOW PILOTS the essential volunteers who drag us into the sky
-AIRLINE PILOT either trains in a glider or UNUSUAL ATTITUDE training

Neilson estimates audience size a 10,000,000 in the USA.

[WAVEGURU]

Great video! Too bad you couldn't have used some young pilots tho...

Boggs

[Dan Marotta]

I thought it was typical condescending reporting. And the "pilot" was
certainly a wimp. Kudos to the two demo pilots who did a great job!


"Waveguru" > wrote in message
...
> Great video! Too bad you couldn't have used some young pilots tho...
>
> Boggs

[Charlie Papa[_2_]]

Well, there is a BIG LESSON in this for us. Yes, he was condescending.

But remember, Anthony's role is to be a surrogate for the 'everyman' pilot, and for the many more pilot wannabe's.

If they don't have experience with gliders, they think they are just simple machines, - IF forced to think about gliders, - because they otherwise seldom or never do.

And if jogged to think about gliders, they think about something analogous to a toboggan: - you tow it up the hill, and it slides down.

So he was perfect. Note that 10,000,000 USA viewers watch this show. There are fewer than 1,000,00 USA pilots. So folks who wish they were pilots, or had learned to fly, make up almost all of th34e audience.

This is great, - but only a first step. There is a reason we see those same commercials again and again and again; they are building 'Share of Mind', and gliding has close to zero.

We all need to sell our sport. And we need assistance from our national gliding organizations on how to do that.

In my view, each and everyone of us should carry a few business cards with the URL of our national organization or our club, or something like www.letsgogliding.ca or www.letsgogliding.com.

Time to wake up!


On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:59:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Papa wrote:
> Here, from Season 4, Episode 11, is the segment on our sport, shot at York Soaring Association near Toronto last summer:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5a0tUPxzl0#t=41
>
>
>
> We believe they will return to York next summer for another segment. We have suggested to them:
>
> -WSPE (Women's Soaring Pilot's Association) annual seminar, this year July 21 - 25 (http://www.womensoaring.org/?p=seminar)
>
> -FREEDOM'S WINGS CANADA York is home to the first and largest Chapter in Canada
>
> - TOW PILOTS the essential volunteers who drag us into the sky
>
> -AIRLINE PILOT either trains in a glider or UNUSUAL ATTITUDE training
>
>
>
> Neilson estimates audience size a 10,000,000 in the USA.

[Eric Bick (1DB)]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:37:06 AM UTC-8, Charlie Papa wrote:
> Well, there is a BIG LESSON in this for us. Yes, he was condescending.
>
>
>
> But remember, Anthony's role is to be a surrogate for the 'everyman' pilot, and for the many more pilot wannabe's.
>
>
>
> If they don't have experience with gliders, they think they are just simple machines, - IF forced to think about gliders, - because they otherwise seldom or never do.
>
>
>
> And if jogged to think about gliders, they think about something analogous to a toboggan: - you tow it up the hill, and it slides down.
>
>
>
> So he was perfect. Note that 10,000,000 USA viewers watch this show. There are fewer than 1,000,00 USA pilots. So folks who wish they were pilots, or had learned to fly, make up almost all of th34e audience.
>
>
>
> This is great, - but only a first step. There is a reason we see those same commercials again and again and again; they are building 'Share of Mind', and gliding has close to zero.
>
>
>
> We all need to sell our sport. And we need assistance from our national gliding organizations on how to do that.
>
>
>
> In my view, each and everyone of us should carry a few business cards with the URL of our national organization or our club, or something like www.letsgogliding.ca or www.letsgogliding.com.
>
>
>
> Time to wake up!
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:59:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Papa wrote:
>
> > Here, from Season 4, Episode 11, is the segment on our sport, shot at York Soaring Association near Toronto last summer:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5a0tUPxzl0#t=41
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We believe they will return to York next summer for another segment. We have suggested to them:
>
> >
>
> > -WSPE (Women's Soaring Pilot's Association) annual seminar, this year July 21 - 25 (http://www.womensoaring.org/?p=seminar)
>
> >
>
> > -FREEDOM'S WINGS CANADA York is home to the first and largest Chapter in Canada
>
> >
>
> > - TOW PILOTS the essential volunteers who drag us into the sky
>
> >
>
> > -AIRLINE PILOT either trains in a glider or UNUSUAL ATTITUDE training
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Neilson estimates audience size a 10,000,000 in the USA.

Great video. Have to comment though on the trend (caution: this is from perspective of western pilot, can only relate what I've seen out west) -

Note that our club flies at Lake Elsinore, sharing the skies with a skydiving operation. Our glider facilities include a small club house with an outhouse, along with a dirt runway and members ranging from teens to 70's. On any given glider ops day, there might be 5 to 10 members there for flying.

The skydive ops, when one chooses to walk over to their facilities, includes food for purchase, meeting rooms, real toilet and shower facilities, overnight guest accommodations, paved runways. They are also regularly crowded with 50 - 100+ skydivers, most in the under 50 range, and maybe 1/4 female, 3/4 male. They go up to 10kft for $8 a ride (with 10 - 20 on board per jump). And, they are an international skydiving destination facility. Plus there is more to do at there facility than skydive.

I will also note that glider club members go over the the skydive facilities to see what's going on and get some food, use the facilities. We also sometimes use their meeting rooms for club meetings. The skydivers, on the other hand, don't tend to come our way to see what's going on with gliders or use our facilities.

It's more than advertising, I think. There is more coverage of skydiving in the media, perhaps due to higher perceived risk. But - how many glider ports are there in the USA that have overnight accommodations? In SoCal, for high desert soaring, we are mostly constrained to motels or camping out (which isn't all bad, but does eliminate many people from being interested). Our Krey Field overnight accommodations are a sleeping bag - period (and rattlers). And a bumpy gravel/dirt runway. And nearest food/shopping about 12 miles away, motel lodging even farther. No electricity or water, other than when the FBO generator is running during flight ops time. Makes for good adventure (and great soaring), but not the type of conditions to convince friends and family to make a habit of going along - and certainly makes an impression on first time visitors along the lines of "What are we doing here?"

I contrast that with staying at Seminole in Florida where the food isn't on field, but is nearby, and there are overnight accommodations with running water and the like for a reasonable fee.

There are others, I know, but I don't think it's as simple as saying more advertising or getting out the word. The skydiving community seems to recognize that the beauty/freedom/thrill of skydiving alone does not generate/attract/retain customers. Perhaps some of the glider FBO's need to think beyond providing a runway and tows as a viable business. That works fine for the die-hard soaring pilots who just want to soar, but for newbies - friends, family, those responding to advertising - maybe more would be beneficial.

Eric Bick

[Dan Marotta]

My point is simply that, were I a neophyte, I'd be more attracted to an
initial statement such as, "I'm going to fly in a glider. It has no engine!
How cool is that?" Rather than, "I'm going to fly in a glider and,
hopefully, I'll get back safely."


"Charlie Papa" > wrote in message
...
> Well, there is a BIG LESSON in this for us. Yes, he was condescending.
>
> But remember, Anthony's role is to be a surrogate for the 'everyman'
> pilot, and for the many more pilot wannabe's.
>
> If they don't have experience with gliders, they think they are just
> simple machines, - IF forced to think about gliders, - because they
> otherwise seldom or never do.
>
> And if jogged to think about gliders, they think about something analogous
> to a toboggan: - you tow it up the hill, and it slides down.
>
> So he was perfect. Note that 10,000,000 USA viewers watch this show.
> There are fewer than 1,000,00 USA pilots. So folks who wish they were
> pilots, or had learned to fly, make up almost all of th34e audience.
>
> This is great, - but only a first step. There is a reason we see those
> same commercials again and again and again; they are building 'Share of
> Mind', and gliding has close to zero.
>
> We all need to sell our sport. And we need assistance from our national
> gliding organizations on how to do that.
>
> In my view, each and everyone of us should carry a few business cards with
> the URL of our national organization or our club, or something like
> www.letsgogliding.ca or www.letsgogliding.com.
>
> Time to wake up!
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:59:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Papa wrote:
>> Here, from Season 4, Episode 11, is the segment on our sport, shot at
>> York Soaring Association near Toronto last summer:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5a0tUPxzl0#t=41
>>
>>
>>
>> We believe they will return to York next summer for another segment. We
>> have suggested to them:
>>
>> -WSPE (Women's Soaring Pilot's Association) annual seminar, this year
>> July 21 - 25 (http://www.womensoaring.org/?p=seminar)
>>
>> -FREEDOM'S WINGS CANADA York is home to the first and largest Chapter in
>> Canada
>>
>> - TOW PILOTS the essential volunteers who drag us into the sky
>>
>> -AIRLINE PILOT either trains in a glider or UNUSUAL ATTITUDE training
>>
>>
>>
>> Neilson estimates audience size a 10,000,000 in the USA.
>

[Charlie Papa[_2_]]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:59:15 PM UTC-5, Charlie Papa wrote:
> Here, from Season 4, Episode 11, is the segment on our sport, shot at York Soaring Association near Toronto last summer:
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5a0tUPxzl0#t=41
>
>
>
> We believe they will return to York next summer for another segment. We have suggested to them:
>
> -WSPE (Women's Soaring Pilot's Association) annual seminar, this year July 21 - 25 (http://www.womensoaring.org/?p=seminar)
>
> -FREEDOM'S WINGS CANADA York is home to the first and largest Chapter in Canada
>
> - TOW PILOTS the essential volunteers who drag us into the sky
>
> -AIRLINE PILOT either trains in a glider or UNUSUAL ATTITUDE training
>
>
>
> Neilson estimates audience size a 10,000,000 in the USA.

In my experience, the 'no engine' thing is a deterrent. That's why I stress that we do have one, - gravity.

And my club is blessed with a comfortable club house, incl. a kitchen, classroom and pilot's lounge, with overnight accommodation and a good social calendar. And I think it's important. But you have to build it, and we need members and money to do that.

Hence the focus on Intro flights; they produce revenue and a small percentage become members. And, IMHO, the easiest target is a power pilot.

But we have a lot of education and marketing to do.

[Dan Marotta]

> In my experience, the 'no engine' thing is a deterrent. That's why I
> stress that we do have one, - gravity.
>

I agree 100%. The "no engine" thing is for the teeny boppers who "need" a
thrill. For the nervous prospect, I tell him that an aircraft flies on its
wings, not on an engine. And if he seems somewhat intelligent (you'd be
amazed!) I try to discuss a bit of the physics (gravity, vectors, etc.).

[[email protected]]

You jaded purveyors of motorless flight should view this video with less than your normal gimlet eye. The video was made for the unwashed masses of those who are engine dependent with the idea of at least rousing their curiosity. Granted the vertically challenged guy with the goatee and the bullet shaped head may not have been the best person to get the word out about gliding flight, but he did send the message and for that we should give him credit.
There has not really been much in the way glider related movies out since "The Boy Who Flew With The Condors" (the Thomas Crown Affairs and perhaps a few car commercials.) But wait dear hearts, there is something in the wings (pun intended) which will air as a trailer of sorts at the SSA convention and presented by Mike Abernathy. It is hoped Mike's film will be out sometime this spring and will be shown on at least the local PBS station in Albuquerque and will awaken the world to the wonders of motorless flight.
Zulu

[Dan Marotta]

....And you better let us know when it airs, Billy.


> wrote in message
...
You jaded purveyors of motorless flight should view this video with less
than your normal gimlet eye. The video was made for the unwashed masses of
those who are engine dependent with the idea of at least rousing their
curiosity. Granted the vertically challenged guy with the goatee and the
bullet shaped head may not have been the best person to get the word out
about gliding flight, but he did send the message and for that we should
give him credit.
There has not really been much in the way glider related movies out since
"The Boy Who Flew With The Condors" (the Thomas Crown Affairs and perhaps a
few car commercials.) But wait dear hearts, there is something in the wings
(pun intended) which will air as a trailer of sorts at the SSA convention
and presented by Mike Abernathy. It is hoped Mike's film will be out
sometime this spring and will be shown on at least the local PBS station in
Albuquerque and will awaken the world to the wonders of motorless flight.
Zulu

[BobW]

On 2/8/2014 12:18 PM, wrote:
> You jaded purveyors of motorless flight should view this video with less
> than your normal gimlet eye. The video was made for the unwashed masses of
> those who are engine dependent with the idea of at least rousing their
> curiosity. <Snip...>

I haven't watched this show, but kinda-sorta in the same vein...

The February issue of EAA's "Sport Aviation" magazine has (for the 2nd
consecutive month) a very nicely done article by EAA's Brady Lane about his
experiences (all favorable) at/with Harris Hill Soaring Club. Lane is a fairly
newbie power pilot (within the past 5-or-so years), and by my reading of all
his articles since he joined EAA - out of school, I believe - an insightful
young(-ish) man.

Here's a couple of short quotes from the February article:
- Soon I would voluntarily, purposefully, and permanently "lose" my engine.
Why would a sane pilot do such a thing? Having options is what makes flying
safe, and a power source provides options.
- I understand an airplane can fly without an engine - it's called an emergency.
- I've never been afraid of gliding, but if I don't have an engine producing
thrust, I consider the rest of the flight an emergency.
- "You nervous about flying with a 17-year-old?" my pilot asked as he helped
me buckle into the back seat of an ASK-21.
"Not at all," I responded. "I'm nervous about not having an engine." He
laughed, but he didn't understand. After all he had never flown *with* an engine.

While Brady might be wrong about that last surmise (his ride-giver was a
3rd-generation glider pilot), note the TWO "emergency" comments, preceding his
last vocalized one. In my estimation (and observations and discussions over
the years), "the average power pilot" DOES consider power loss a -
life-threatening!!! - emergency...and flies accordingly when it happens. (We
all fly best, tense, right?) That's one reason I much prefer to ride in GA
powerplanes only with "add-on power ratings" glider pilots (alternatively, XC
comfortable ones, if they got their power rating first). Their attitude is
more likely to be - after a power loss - "Crud...guess we'll be landing over
THERE." Power loss as an inconvenience vs. power loss as an emergency...

I'd bet Brady's outlook before he bellied up to the soaring bar, is Really
Common in the power-only community, even limiting it to only single-engine
lightplane types.

On his second ride (front seat, with the 1st generation pilot of his 1st-ride
pilot), they soared. From his article, one can sense blinders falling from his
eyes.

Bob W.

P.S. I e-mailed him with a warm fuzzy - and *Thanks!* - after the February
article.

[Casey Cox]

Some may not know that Manfred does a show at Sun N Fun.

http://radiusairshows.com/index.htm

[WAVEGURU]

Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves us forward. The sun powers our gliders. ( after the initial boost from dead dinosaurs)

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:14:08 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 2/8/2014 12:18 PM, wrote:
>
> > You jaded purveyors of motorless flight should view this video with less
>
> > than your normal gimlet eye. The video was made for the unwashed masses of
>
> > those who are engine dependent with the idea of at least rousing their
>
> > curiosity. <Snip...>
>
>
>
> I haven't watched this show, but kinda-sorta in the same vein...
>
>
>
> The February issue of EAA's "Sport Aviation" magazine has (for the 2nd
>
> consecutive month) a very nicely done article by EAA's Brady Lane about his
>
> experiences (all favorable) at/with Harris Hill Soaring Club. Lane is a fairly
>
> newbie power pilot (within the past 5-or-so years), and by my reading of all
>
> his articles since he joined EAA - out of school, I believe - an insightful
>
> young(-ish) man.
>
>
>
> Here's a couple of short quotes from the February article:
>
> - Soon I would voluntarily, purposefully, and permanently "lose" my engine.
>
> Why would a sane pilot do such a thing? Having options is what makes flying
>
> safe, and a power source provides options.
>
> - I understand an airplane can fly without an engine - it's called an emergency.
>
> - I've never been afraid of gliding, but if I don't have an engine producing
>
> thrust, I consider the rest of the flight an emergency.
>
> - "You nervous about flying with a 17-year-old?" my pilot asked as he helped
>
> me buckle into the back seat of an ASK-21.
>
> "Not at all," I responded. "I'm nervous about not having an engine." He
>
> laughed, but he didn't understand. After all he had never flown *with* an engine.
>
>
>
> While Brady might be wrong about that last surmise (his ride-giver was a
>
> 3rd-generation glider pilot), note the TWO "emergency" comments, preceding his
>
> last vocalized one. In my estimation (and observations and discussions over
>
> the years), "the average power pilot" DOES consider power loss a -
>
> life-threatening!!! - emergency...and flies accordingly when it happens. (We
>
> all fly best, tense, right?) That's one reason I much prefer to ride in GA
>
> powerplanes only with "add-on power ratings" glider pilots (alternatively, XC
>
> comfortable ones, if they got their power rating first). Their attitude is
>
> more likely to be - after a power loss - "Crud...guess we'll be landing over
>
> THERE." Power loss as an inconvenience vs. power loss as an emergency...
>
>
>
> I'd bet Brady's outlook before he bellied up to the soaring bar, is Really
>
> Common in the power-only community, even limiting it to only single-engine
>
> lightplane types.
>
>
>
> On his second ride (front seat, with the 1st generation pilot of his 1st-ride
>
> pilot), they soared. From his article, one can sense blinders falling from his
>
> eyes.
>
>
>
> Bob W.
>
>
>
> P.S. I e-mailed him with a warm fuzzy - and *Thanks!* - after the February
>
> article.

What Bob W. said.
http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/february_2014#pg38

Frank Whiteley

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves
> us forward. The sun powers our gliders. ( after the initial boost from dead
> dinosaurs)
>

What came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm with you on the sun being the
power, but I gotta ask - what provides the forward tilt of lift?

Bob - I'll rack out now - W.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 2/8/2014 10:13 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
>> Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves
>> us forward. The sun powers our gliders. ( after the initial boost from dead
>> dinosaurs)
>>
>
> What came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm with you on the sun being the
> power, but I gotta ask - what provides the forward tilt of lift?
>
> Bob - I'll rack out now - W.

Sheesh...I really SHOULD rack out. I'll admit Mr. Sun is crucially important
to us actually soaring (i.e. gaining energy), nonetheless I'm pretty sure the
glider would still move forward in the absence of sunlight...but the FAA
frowns on my testing that hypothesis.

Bob - gravity never quits - W.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > writes:
>On 2/8/2014 10:13 PM, Bob Whelan wrote:
>>> Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves
>>> us forward. The sun powers our gliders. ( after the initial boost from dead
>>> dinosaurs)
>>>
>>
>> What came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm with you on the sun being the
>> power, but I gotta ask - what provides the forward tilt of lift?
>>
>> Bob - I'll rack out now - W.
>
>Sheesh...I really SHOULD rack out. I'll admit Mr. Sun is crucially important
>to us actually soaring (i.e. gaining energy), nonetheless I'm pretty sure the
>glider would still move forward in the absence of sunlight...but the FAA
>frowns on my testing that hypothesis.
>
>Bob - gravity never quits - W.


The glider would move without sunlight, but (short of the energy applied
during tow), the energy for climbing comes from sunlight.

Gravity provides a force to hold the air here, and a force to act through
distance (altitude) to provide us with foot-pounds of energy.

The forward tilt of lift is a result of the aircraft pitch angle.

Alan

[CJ[_3_]]

Waveguru > wrote:
> Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves us forward.

Say what now?!?

You're flying in equilibrium, in unaccelerated straight line flight at a
speed just above the stall. You have a nose high attitude and a line
perpendicular to your wing surface is pointing rearwards. Where is the
"forward tilt of lift"? You'd need a lift distribution shaped like a
flaccid.....err, a slinky that's toppled forward to sustain this
hypothesis.

Your 'forward pointing force', the one that's opposing drag and "replacing
thrust" if you're of the powered persuasion, is the forward component of
weight. So yes, gravity is indeed our "engine".

CJ
B3

[WAVEGURU]

A rock has air and gravity when you drop it, but does not move forward through the air. Our wings provide our thrust to move us horizontally.

Boggs

[CJ[_3_]]

Waveguru > wrote:
> A rock has air and gravity when you drop it, but does not move forward
> through the air. Our wings provide our thrust to move us horizontally.
>
> Boggs

A rock doesn't fall in equilibrium (until terminal velocity at least) and
it's forces operate in only one plane - the vertical. Can we compare apples
with apples please?

If you have sound reasoning to offer and preferably, a vector diagram, I'm
all ears.

CJ
B3

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 11:30:34 PM UTC-5, Waveguru wrote:
> Gravity does not power our gliders. The forward tilt of lift is what moves us forward. The sun powers our gliders. ( after the initial boost from dead dinosaurs)

Pointing out that the sun is the source of all vertical wind is a good way to recruit young eco-minded prospects, but some folks will be put off by that "sustainable green talk".

My standby line is that "a good glider pilot can stay up for hours without spending any money on fuel". Most people take that as a big plus, and it directs the conversation towards lift and the core challenges of flying gliders.

[Dan Marotta]

Sorry, CJ, but when pitched nose up with the lift vector aft, you can't maintain a constant speed (without an engine) since the horizontal component of your lift vector is directed aft hence the glider slows down. That is accelerated flight, though a negative acceleration (rate of change of velocity with respect to time = acceleration). Keep this up and you will stall.

The 'forward point force' in your example is rearward and amounts to drag rather than thrust. The weight vector is always towards the center of the earth.

"CJ" > wrote in message ...
> Waveguru > wrote:
>> A rock has air and gravity when you drop it, but does not move forward
>> through the air. Our wings provide our thrust to move us horizontally.
>>
>> Boggs
>
> A rock doesn't fall in equilibrium (until terminal velocity at least) and
> it's forces operate in only one plane - the vertical. Can we compare apples
> with apples please?
>
> If you have sound reasoning to offer and preferably, a vector diagram, I'm
> all ears.
>
> CJ
> B3

[Dave Springford]

I would guess that waveguru has never taken a first year Applied Mechanics Engineering course, otherwise he would understand things such as equilibrium, free-body diagrams, vectors and force components and the fact that lift acts perpendicular to the relative airflow and therefore by definition can not provide thrust.

[CJ[_3_]]

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my example Dan! You're right in that
the example I gave stated lift acting rearwards which in sustained flight
is incorrect. Whilst the aerodynamic force acts rearwards, the resolved
component of lift does indeed angle slightly forward, effectively, at the
glide angle. Where we seem to disagree (after agreeing that weight always
acts towards the centre of the earth) is that weight can be resolved into
two components. The component that opposes lift and the 'forwards
component' that opposes drag.

Figure 2-15 at http://avstop.com/ac/power_parachute/chapter2_7.html refers.
Where "WD" is the "forward component of weight" that I'm speaking of.
<Not being able to draw here, I'm stuck using the works others - sorry!>
:)

CJ
B3

**reader not quoting properly; text below for context**
Sorry, CJ, but when pitched nose up with the lift vector aft, you can't
maintain a constant speed (without an engine) since the horizontal
component of your lift vector is directed aft hence the glider slows down.
That is accelerated flight, though a negative acceleration (rate of change
of velocity with respect to time = acceleration). Keep this up and you will
stall.
The 'forward point force' in your example is rearward and amounts to drag
rather than thrust. The weight vector is always towards the center of the
earth.

"CJ" > wrote in message
...

Waveguru > wrote:
A rock has air and gravity when you drop it, but does not move forward
through the air. Our wings provide our thrust to move us horizontally.
Boggs

A rock doesn't fall in equilibrium (until terminal velocity at least) and
it's forces operate in only one plane - the vertical. Can we compare apples
with apples please?

If you have sound reasoning to offer and preferably, a vector diagram, I'm
all ears.

CJ
B3

[[email protected]]

"Pitch angle" and "forward tilt" in relation to what, hmmmm?

Remove gravity from the equation and you're not going anywhere.

Last time we had a glider on display at the Abbotsford Airshow I filled in the "powerplant" section of the supplied information board as "hybrid gravitic-nuclear fusion drive system."


As for using young pilots... well, you fly with who you have - and who is available to fit the schedule of the television crew. My club has at times had some young instructors and some years we don't. For the second half of the show I don't think it would be an option. it's not like Ontario has a wide selection of expert, legendary aerobatic pilots known for putting on amazing glider aerobatic performances at airshows all across North America to choose from...

[Dan Marotta]

Ya know what, CJ? I kinda, sorta, agree with you - somewhat! That powered
parachute discussion made my brain hurt, though.

Cheers!


"CJ" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my example Dan! You're right in that
> the example I gave stated lift acting rearwards which in sustained flight
> is incorrect. Whilst the aerodynamic force acts rearwards, the resolved
> component of lift does indeed angle slightly forward, effectively, at the
> glide angle. Where we seem to disagree (after agreeing that weight always
> acts towards the centre of the earth) is that weight can be resolved into
> two components. The component that opposes lift and the 'forwards
> component' that opposes drag.
>
> Figure 2-15 at http://avstop.com/ac/power_parachute/chapter2_7.html
> refers.
> Where "WD" is the "forward component of weight" that I'm speaking of.
> <Not being able to draw here, I'm stuck using the works others - sorry!>
> :)
>
> CJ
> B3
>
> **reader not quoting properly; text below for context**
> Sorry, CJ, but when pitched nose up with the lift vector aft, you can't
> maintain a constant speed (without an engine) since the horizontal
> component of your lift vector is directed aft hence the glider slows down.
> That is accelerated flight, though a negative acceleration (rate of change
> of velocity with respect to time = acceleration). Keep this up and you
> will
> stall.
> The 'forward point force' in your example is rearward and amounts to drag
> rather than thrust. The weight vector is always towards the center of the
> earth.
>
> "CJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Waveguru > wrote:
> A rock has air and gravity when you drop it, but does not move forward
> through the air. Our wings provide our thrust to move us horizontally.
> Boggs
>
> A rock doesn't fall in equilibrium (until terminal velocity at least) and
> it's forces operate in only one plane - the vertical. Can we compare
> apples
> with apples please?
>
> If you have sound reasoning to offer and preferably, a vector diagram, I'm
> all ears.
>
> CJ
> B3