Thermal right, land left

[John]

This past year, I have stuck to a policy of making all thermal turns
to the right only.

The airport I fly out of has left turns in the pattern. My idea is I
am developing the habit of turning slow to the right only. All left
turns are made at higher pattern speeds.

With the condition I am just recreationally flying locally (don't have
to be that efficient and can burn a turn to center each thermal by
going the "wrong way"), I found that thermaling for a while to the
left, then landing made the high speed left turns in the pattern feel
a bit "different". This was especially noticiable after not flying
for awhile. The result was babying the plane thru the turns instead
of "bank and yank".

Does this make sense for low-time pilots, or pilots who take time off
from flying occasionally? Seems like if you have not flown for
awhile, then thermal a few dozen slow left turns, you would naturally
tend to prefer slow left turns in the pattern. That is what you were
just praticing to do, after all.

Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?

John

[Scott]

As far as I am concerned, landing and thermaling are two different things.
Keep them separate. At altitude, thermal any which way you want, as long as
you do it safely. Practice landings over and over again if you feel
something is "different." Each time you enter the pattern, you should set
yourself in "Landing Mode" and everything should feel the same every time
except for minor adjustments for wind or other aircraft. If you're going to
have an accident, statistics say it will happen in the landing pattern: So
keep your landings the same every time.
"John" > wrote in message
om...
> This past year, I have stuck to a policy of making all thermal turns
> to the right only.
>
> The airport I fly out of has left turns in the pattern. My idea is I
> am developing the habit of turning slow to the right only. All left
> turns are made at higher pattern speeds.
>
> With the condition I am just recreationally flying locally (don't have
> to be that efficient and can burn a turn to center each thermal by
> going the "wrong way"), I found that thermaling for a while to the
> left, then landing made the high speed left turns in the pattern feel
> a bit "different". This was especially noticiable after not flying
> for awhile. The result was babying the plane thru the turns instead
> of "bank and yank".
>
> Does this make sense for low-time pilots, or pilots who take time off
> from flying occasionally? Seems like if you have not flown for
> awhile, then thermal a few dozen slow left turns, you would naturally
> tend to prefer slow left turns in the pattern. That is what you were
> just praticing to do, after all.
>
> Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
> only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
> slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?
>
> John




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Bill Gribble]

John > writes
>Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
>only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
>slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?

What if there were already another glider in the thermal but running
anti-clockwise? Would you forgo the obvious thermal so kindly marked out
by the other aircraft rather than take it to the left, or take it to the
right regardless of the precedent set by the glider there first?

Is the pattern where you fly always on a left hand circuit? Even if it
is, approaching it in such a formulaic fashion can't be conducive to
safety. Keeping a flexible and open mind to the variation of
circumstance and being confident and competent to adapt and cope
accordingly is a much safer approach, IMHO. And the best place to
practice co-ordinated turns of any attitude is at altitude.

And in any case, from the little I've seen myself, some thermals require
as aggressive a turn as any final turn into approach might justify in
order to work them properly. And not every turn, or at least not every
adjustment in the pattern absolutely demands an aggressive a turn as the
final turn should be.

--
Bill Gribble

/-----------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\-----------------------------------/

[Vorsanger1]

John: the issue of joining a gaggle of other gliders which are thermalling to
the left has already been addressed by another pilot. I would like to add
this: the airport out of which you fly has a left turn pattern. Will you
*always* fly out of that airport, and *never* out of another where the pattern
may be different? It is best to practice both right and left turns at altitude
in order to feel comfortable in either.

Cheers, Charles

[Bill Daniels]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> This past year, I have stuck to a policy of making all thermal turns
> to the right only.
>
> The airport I fly out of has left turns in the pattern. My idea is I
> am developing the habit of turning slow to the right only. All left
> turns are made at higher pattern speeds.
>
> With the condition I am just recreationally flying locally (don't have
> to be that efficient and can burn a turn to center each thermal by
> going the "wrong way"), I found that thermaling for a while to the
> left, then landing made the high speed left turns in the pattern feel
> a bit "different". This was especially noticiable after not flying
> for awhile. The result was babying the plane thru the turns instead
> of "bank and yank".
>
> Does this make sense for low-time pilots, or pilots who take time off
> from flying occasionally? Seems like if you have not flown for
> awhile, then thermal a few dozen slow left turns, you would naturally
> tend to prefer slow left turns in the pattern. That is what you were
> just praticing to do, after all.
>
> Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
> only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
> slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?
>
> John

The subject of preferred turn direction has come up all too frequently on
this news group.

If you can't thermal equally well to the right and left, or fly patterns
equally well to the right and left, please get more training! Don't be
surprised if other pilots avoid you in the air until you can do both well.

I believe that the inability to turn well in both directions is a strong
indicator of diminished flying abilities. As such, it is a reliable
precursor to an accident. On a BFR, it's a showstopper.

Bill Daniels

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 17:28:15 +0000, Bill Gribble
> wrote:

>And in any case, from the little I've seen myself, some thermals require
>as aggressive a turn as any final turn into approach might justify in
>order to work them properly. And not every turn, or at least not every
>adjustment in the pattern absolutely demands an aggressive a turn as the
>final turn should be.
>
Right on. The strongest thermal I found last season was also very
narrow - it only worked well with a 60 degree bank and very careful
flying (a Pegase gets twitchy when asked to turn that tight). It would
not have been usable with another glider sharing it at a similar
height.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Chris OCallaghan]

John,

For what it's worth, I don't think this is a good idea. You may not
have a choice which way you thermal, especially if you join others. If
you have concerns about maintaining proper airspeed in the pattern, I
suggest the following: at some fixed altitude well above the IP,
increase your airspeed to pattern speed and maintain it while you make
your way to the IP. Even if you decide to stop and test a potential
thermal, keep flying at your chosen pattern speed. If you decide to
stay with the thermal to extend your flight, then slow down. If not,
keep up your speed. This will attune you to the sound, feel, and pitch
attitude of the glider for several minutes prior to enterning the
pattern.

If your IP altitude is 700 msl, you could increase your speed as soon
as you descend below 1500 msl. And remember, in the pattern, you
should be checking your ASI often, at least once every 7 seconds. Any
variation in speed should be addressed immediately. If your speed
varies more than + or - 5 knots, you should take a refresher flight
with an instructor. There's no shame in sharing a flight with someone
who can help get you back in the groove more quickly.

OC

[Shawn Curry]

Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> The subject of preferred turn direction has come up all too frequently on
> this news group.
>
> If you can't thermal equally well to the right and left, or fly patterns
> equally well to the right and left, please get more training! Don't be
> surprised if other pilots avoid you in the air until you can do both well.
>
> I believe that the inability to turn well in both directions is a strong
> indicator of diminished flying abilities. As such, it is a reliable
> precursor to an accident. On a BFR, it's a showstopper.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
Equally well? So, when I do my BFR I should make my left turns slightly
less precise, so they match my perfectly adequate right turns. Seems a
bit harsh.
:-)

Shawn

P.S. I try to thermal to the right more than left, so I won't have to
fudge as much on my next BFR.

[Mark James Boyd]

I've always just flown the direction of the lifted wing for
the thermal. Sure, you could probably just do them all to
the right, and it wouldn't make much difference,
but if you ever competed, the extra falling out of the thermal
and the confusion when joining others would be
new.

I personally don't like thermalling right turns, because of
my power experience (left is best!), but when I look at my traces,
I'm about 50/50.

The reason many patterns are left, and right for helicopters, is
because this is where the pilot has the seat and the best vis in
side-by-side seating. In low vis circle-to-lands, it's nice to
be on the correct side of the cockpit...

In article >,
John > wrote:
>This past year, I have stuck to a policy of making all thermal turns
>to the right only.
>
>The airport I fly out of has left turns in the pattern. My idea is I
>am developing the habit of turning slow to the right only. All left
>turns are made at higher pattern speeds.
>
>With the condition I am just recreationally flying locally (don't have
>to be that efficient and can burn a turn to center each thermal by
>going the "wrong way"), I found that thermaling for a while to the
>left, then landing made the high speed left turns in the pattern feel
>a bit "different". This was especially noticiable after not flying
>for awhile. The result was babying the plane thru the turns instead
>of "bank and yank".
>
>Does this make sense for low-time pilots, or pilots who take time off
>from flying occasionally? Seems like if you have not flown for
>awhile, then thermal a few dozen slow left turns, you would naturally
>tend to prefer slow left turns in the pattern. That is what you were
>just praticing to do, after all.
>
>Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
>only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
>slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?
>
>John


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[BTIZ]

LOL Shawn... if the turns are "adequate".. the BFR should not be an issue...
don't have to be perfect.. just safe... but I do remember something about
the BFR standards being to the level of the rating.. so if you hold a
Commercial rating, the BFR standard is higher than a Pvt pilot.

BT

"Shawn Curry" > wrote in message
news:16s3c.529913$na.1269374@attbi_s04...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> >
> > The subject of preferred turn direction has come up all too frequently
on
> > this news group.
> >
> > If you can't thermal equally well to the right and left, or fly patterns
> > equally well to the right and left, please get more training! Don't be
> > surprised if other pilots avoid you in the air until you can do both
well.
> >
> > I believe that the inability to turn well in both directions is a strong
> > indicator of diminished flying abilities. As such, it is a reliable
> > precursor to an accident. On a BFR, it's a showstopper.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> Equally well? So, when I do my BFR I should make my left turns slightly
> less precise, so they match my perfectly adequate right turns. Seems a
> bit harsh.
> :-)
>
> Shawn
>
> P.S. I try to thermal to the right more than left, so I won't have to
> fudge as much on my next BFR.

[BTIZ]

some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a thermal... unless
of course the thermal was strong enough to cause "an upset".. and then they
would still not recognize it as a thermal but a "wind gust" or even worse.."
an air pocket "..

I did not know air had pockets... LOL

BT

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:404e629e$1@darkstar...
> I've always just flown the direction of the lifted wing for
> the thermal. Sure, you could probably just do them all to
> the right, and it wouldn't make much difference,
> but if you ever competed, the extra falling out of the thermal
> and the confusion when joining others would be
> new.
>
> I personally don't like thermalling right turns, because of
> my power experience (left is best!), but when I look at my traces,
> I'm about 50/50.
>
> The reason many patterns are left, and right for helicopters, is
> because this is where the pilot has the seat and the best vis in
> side-by-side seating. In low vis circle-to-lands, it's nice to
> be on the correct side of the cockpit...
>
> In article >,
> John > wrote:
> >This past year, I have stuck to a policy of making all thermal turns
> >to the right only.
> >
> >The airport I fly out of has left turns in the pattern. My idea is I
> >am developing the habit of turning slow to the right only. All left
> >turns are made at higher pattern speeds.
> >
> >With the condition I am just recreationally flying locally (don't have
> >to be that efficient and can burn a turn to center each thermal by
> >going the "wrong way"), I found that thermaling for a while to the
> >left, then landing made the high speed left turns in the pattern feel
> >a bit "different". This was especially noticiable after not flying
> >for awhile. The result was babying the plane thru the turns instead
> >of "bank and yank".
> >
> >Does this make sense for low-time pilots, or pilots who take time off
> >from flying occasionally? Seems like if you have not flown for
> >awhile, then thermal a few dozen slow left turns, you would naturally
> >tend to prefer slow left turns in the pattern. That is what you were
> >just praticing to do, after all.
> >
> >Is there safety benefits to thermaling only to the right, and landing
> >only with left turns? Will a pilot develop habits or preference for
> >slow speed right turns and high speed left turns?
> >
> >John
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Jim Vincent]

>some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
>determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a therma

I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach only
works about half the time.

Consider three sections of air: calm air, sink before a thermal, and the lift
of the thermal itself. Imagine that you're flying along and you happen to run
into the sink on the left wing and lift on the right wing (hand flying really
helps here). In this case, the lifted wing approach would work; turning into
the lifted wing would take you into the lift.

Now consider if you're flying along and run into the calm air on the left wing
and the sink on the right wing. If you use the lifted wing approach, you woud
turn into the calm air and away from the lift! The best course would be to
turn into the lowered wing, drive through the sink and on into the thermal.

So, it really makes do difference which way you turn. It matters more how you
respond to the conditions you experince when you make the turn.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Shaber CJ]

>The reason many patterns are left, and right for helicopters, is
>because this is where the pilot has the seat and the best vis in
>side-by-side seating.

Really. I fly helicopters with the pilot seat on the right, Bells and
helicopters where the pilot seat is on the left, MD's. We do not change our
patterns depending on how the seat is loctated. The helicopter is to avoid the
flow of fixed wing traffic, plus we do not need to fly the same type of pattern
as a fixed wing aircraft, that is the reason for the type of patterns flown by
helicopters.

Craig "can turn either right or left" Shaber

[BTIZ]

We had a helicopter gumming up the traffic pattern last weekend.. his
traffic pattern was about twice the extended downwind and long final that
the tow plane and gliders were using.

I think he got 1/2 the clue when a glider called and asked.. are you on
downwind or cross country.. I'm not going that far from the airport for base
leg, so I'm turning base behind you.

And then on his next trip around the pattern, the tow plane called and
stated, "Helicopter xyy, if your going that far out on final, I'll turn
behind you and be down and clear before you can get back to the runway.",
the other 1/2 of the clue.

Granted it was student and instructor in the helicopter. But I know students
in airplanes that don't log cross country on down wind.

Helicopters here don't have the advantage of flying the "opposite direction
pattern" to avoid other aircraft. We have parallel runways, and always have
traffic turning either right or left for the right or left runway. Power on
one side, gliders on the other, and the tow plane shares the glider
operations.

All uncontrolled and it works out well for the most part, until other
powered aircraft try to mix it up in the glider pattern, and they forget who
has right of way. But that happens mostly with transients, the local pilots
know.

BT

BT

> >The reason many patterns are left, and right for helicopters, is
> >because this is where the pilot has the seat and the best vis in
> >side-by-side seating.
>
> Really. I fly helicopters with the pilot seat on the right, Bells and
> helicopters where the pilot seat is on the left, MD's. We do not change
our
> patterns depending on how the seat is loctated. The helicopter is to
avoid the
> flow of fixed wing traffic, plus we do not need to fly the same type of
pattern
> as a fixed wing aircraft, that is the reason for the type of patterns
flown by
> helicopters.
>
> Craig "can turn either right or left" Shaber

[Mark James Boyd]

No offense to good ol' Tom, but the lift and sink that I have
encountered feel different. The sinking part of the thermal before
the lift of the wing feels turbulent to me. It also seems to go
from more sink to less sink. This is the opposite of a lift,
where it goes from less lift to more lift.

So when I feel a roll that goes from a high roll rate to a low roll rate,
I am in the turbulent sink before the core of the thermal, and
when I go from a low roll rate to a high roll rate, I know that
wing is entering the core of the thermal and since it is the
lifted wing, I turn into it, and into the thermal.

I didn't even realise this is what I do and feel until
I verbalized it just then. I must say that this "feel"
has done very, very well for me. When I look at my
traces, I turn immediately into the thermal and circle
there effectively with little shift (no 270
degree turns or major corrections to the other side).
This seems to work quite well, and consistently.

Some of this was learned because I flew quite a few days in
perfectly clear air. Other than the feel of the stick and
the pitch and roll, I had no immediate indications of lift.
The vario was just too coarse.

In article >,
Jim Vincent > wrote:
>>some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
>>determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a therma
>
>I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach only
>works about half the time.
>
>Consider three sections of air: calm air, sink before a thermal, and the lift
>of the thermal itself. Imagine that you're flying along and you happen to run
>into the sink on the left wing and lift on the right wing (hand flying really
>helps here). In this case, the lifted wing approach would work; turning into
>the lifted wing would take you into the lift.
>
>Now consider if you're flying along and run into the calm air on the left wing
>and the sink on the right wing. If you use the lifted wing approach, you woud
>turn into the calm air and away from the lift! The best course would be to
>turn into the lowered wing, drive through the sink and on into the thermal.
>
>So, it really makes do difference which way you turn. It matters more how you
>respond to the conditions you experince when you make the turn.
>
>Jim Vincent
>CFIG
>N483SZ



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Shaber CJ > wrote:
>>The reason many patterns are left, and right for helicopters, is
>>because this is where the pilot has the seat and the best vis in
>>side-by-side seating.
>
>Really. I fly helicopters with the pilot seat on the right, Bells and
>helicopters where the pilot seat is on the left, MD's. We do not change our
>patterns depending on how the seat is loctated. The helicopter is to avoid the
>flow of fixed wing traffic, plus we do not need to fly the same type of pattern
>as a fixed wing aircraft, that is the reason for the type of patterns flown by
>helicopters.
>
>Craig "can turn either right or left" Shaber

Change the verbiage to read
"By happy coincidence, a lot of
patterns in the US for airplane traffic are left patterns,
and solo pilots and often PICs with passengers fly from
the left seat and enjoy a better vis."

"Also by happy coincidence, some helicopters avoiding the flow of
fixed wing traffic might make right patterns and have the PIC
or solo pilot in the right seat. This pilot might have
better visibility."

Whether there is causality or not is certainly arguable.
I for one am happy with the coincidence...


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[whbush]

My experience is, I feel that I am entering sink before lift and have said
to myself many times 'there's the sink..' and the audio vario confirms it.
Now the vario tells me less sink look for the lift...and that feeling in my
butt tells me the same, I then wait for the wings to tell me which way to
turn, it doesn't tell if by the time I decide if to turn if I did it to
early or late. But the pundits would be dolphining and not turning anyway.



"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:404eab8b$1@darkstar...
> No offense to good ol' Tom, but the lift and sink that I have
> encountered feel different. The sinking part of the thermal before
> the lift of the wing feels turbulent to me. It also seems to go
> from more sink to less sink. This is the opposite of a lift,
> where it goes from less lift to more lift.
>
> So when I feel a roll that goes from a high roll rate to a low roll rate,
> I am in the turbulent sink before the core of the thermal, and
> when I go from a low roll rate to a high roll rate, I know that
> wing is entering the core of the thermal and since it is the
> lifted wing, I turn into it, and into the thermal.
>
> I didn't even realise this is what I do and feel until
> I verbalized it just then. I must say that this "feel"
> has done very, very well for me. When I look at my
> traces, I turn immediately into the thermal and circle
> there effectively with little shift (no 270
> degree turns or major corrections to the other side).
> This seems to work quite well, and consistently.
>
> Some of this was learned because I flew quite a few days in
> perfectly clear air. Other than the feel of the stick and
> the pitch and roll, I had no immediate indications of lift.
> The vario was just too coarse.
>
> In article >,
> Jim Vincent > wrote:
> >>some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
> >>determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a therma
> >
> >I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach
only
> >works about half the time.
> >
> >Consider three sections of air: calm air, sink before a thermal, and the
lift
> >of the thermal itself. Imagine that you're flying along and you happen
to run
> >into the sink on the left wing and lift on the right wing (hand flying
really
> >helps here). In this case, the lifted wing approach would work; turning
into
> >the lifted wing would take you into the lift.
> >
> >Now consider if you're flying along and run into the calm air on the left
wing
> >and the sink on the right wing. If you use the lifted wing approach, you
woud
> >turn into the calm air and away from the lift! The best course would be
to
> >turn into the lowered wing, drive through the sink and on into the
thermal.
> >
> >So, it really makes do difference which way you turn. It matters more
how you
> >respond to the conditions you experince when you make the turn.
> >
> >Jim Vincent
> >CFIG
> >N483SZ
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[DonDLHMN]

I think someone already pointed out that the OFFICIAL guidance for helo pilots
when entering an airport area is "to aviod the flow of fixed wing traffic".
Pretty much means to me that what I've always done when flying a helo is
correct..I just avoid the flow of fixed wing traffic...seems to work out well
for everyone! Who wants to spend all that extra time flyng a totally
unnecessary traffic pattern anyway?

As for the question of land left, thermal right....that certainly smacks of
"rote learning", inflexibility, and of one who needs more training. Will all of
your possible landouts work with that "land left" concept? Wouldn't you want to
be as able to adapt safely and quickly to differing pattern requirements as you
could possibly be? The airport where I fly gliders lands left traffic when
landing south and southeast and then right traffic when landing north and
northwest. What would a person that is only competent to "land left" do in this
situation? Maybe fly only on days where the wind suits his preferred (and
limited) landing abilities?

[John]

The point I was making was is there benefits for low-time pilots to
thermal right and land left?

Of course, this is not needed for super experienced pilots who have
developed so much skill that they feel thermals and no longer need a
vario, or fly helicopters when the lift is not that good because they
have all this excess flying skill.

I myself can turn equally well right or left. But I have noticed I
prefer thermalling to the right, and landing to the left. Having over
250 flights, I have plenty of experience going both directions, but
have developed preference for turning one way or another. (as an
aside, I prefer left turns on my motorcycle too....no reason, just
like them better).

But for new pilots, experience is limited. So can habits be quickly
developed to make fast turns when low, and slow turns when high, with
the simple choice of turn direction? Seems like people do what they
practice, so it would be hard to isolate the slow turns in a thermal
with the faster turns while landing unless something fundamentally is
different. Turn direction might be that difference.

Of course, altitude should be the difference (the trees are bigger so
go faster). But based on the number of crashes while landing, this
seems not to be a good indicator that you can't go around the pattern
like you have just been going around thermals. I propose a simple
idea that turn direction might have some safety benefits. Any honest
comment on the idea?

I assume, once experience is gained, the low-time pilot will be
equally good regardless of turn direction. Can the habit be broken
then? Likely, but if the low-time pilot maintains a preference for
turn direction while thermalling or landing, is that bad? I would
suggest most of us have a preference eventually, so what is wrong with
starting out with a specified turn preference being taught?

[Bill Daniels]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> The point I was making was is there benefits for low-time pilots to
> thermal right and land left?
>

Sorry, John, the answer is no. Pilots, "low-time" or not, shouldn't even
THINK about preferred turn directions whether in thermals or landing
patterns.

Absent a rigging error, (meaning the glider flies straight hands-off - not
forgetting the wing pins) a pilots feeling that he has a "preferred turn
direction" is a red flag warning of a general flying skill deficit that
needs professional attention.

Turns are the simplest and most essential maneuver in a glider pilots
repertoire. If a pilot can't do those very, very well, in both directions,
there is a big problem that very likely extends to other areas.

Even if a pilot is otherwise safe, given the complexity of flying, there is
no way to safely accommodate a turn preference. Turns, both left and right,
should be totally instinctive and easy.

BTW, I've come to really dislike the pejorative term "low-time pilots". I
know many extremely skilled pilots with less than 200 hours and LOTS of
"long-time" pilots whose flying skills have deteriorated to alarming levels.
The later group seems to use the term a great deal. No matter how many
years you have been flying, you are only as good as your last flight.

Bill Daniels

[Shirley]

bandit111964 (John) wrote:
>I myself can turn equally well right or left. But I
>have noticed I prefer thermalling to the right, and
>landing to the left. Having over 250 flights, I have
>plenty of experience going both directions, but
>have developed preference for turning one way or
>another. (as an aside, I prefer left turns on my
>motorcycle too....no reason, just like them better).
>[snip]
>Seems like people do what they practice, so it
>would be hard to isolate the slow turns in a thermal
>with the faster turns while landing unless something
>fundamentally is different. [snip]

What is "fundamentally different" is that it is landing, not thermaling ...
even students/new pilots should fully understand the difference. Don't see how
one could confuse the two unless their mind is on something completely
unrelated to flying, and I'm not a CFIG, but I don't think going in one
direction or another consistently is a solution for not paying full attention
to what you're doing.

I know this will sound weird to you guys, especially with the stigma attached
to women pilots ... but going to put on the armor and contribute it anyway:

As a figure skating instructor turned glider pilot, I can say that it is an
accepted fact that few people do things equally in both directions. That's not
to say that the "bad" direction can't be done with great proficiently--it
certainly CAN--but everyone has one direction that feels more natural and
comfortable than the other. Before anyone puts on skates, we ask people to spin
on one foot (on the ground, not the ice)--whichever way they *instinctively*
turn (a bigger percentage of us instinctively turn to the left), that's
considered their "natural direction". In skating like in flying, we work to
make both sides equally competent, but jumps and spins are developed in the
person's natural direction.

When I began flying gliders, I was not surprised to note that when my
instructor said "Show me a turning stall, either direction," I almost always
went left first, likely just because that direction feels more natural to
me--not because I do them more competently that way.

Left alone, most people practice things in the "good" (natural/comfortable)
direction much more regularly than they will in the unnatural direction.
Ideally, people practice the unnatural direction enough that they can perform
maneuvers without hesitation in a solid, efficient and competent way. Sometimes
the so-called "bad" direction even winds up being more technically correct
because the person pays closer attention to that direction to get it right, and
sloppy, bad habits are more likely to form in the direction the person feels
comfortable enough to get a little lazy in! And I've heard motorcyclists
express that same tendency to prefer turns in one direction over another also.

I consider myself a "new pilot" ... licensed for a year. I remember conditions
were such that the majority of my initial landing instruction was done in one
direction. When conditions changed, it felt "backwards" to fly the pattern and
land the other way, and I remember the puzzled looks and chuckles from seasoned
pilots -- "Why? it's the SAME thing!!" At some point long before the checkride,
either direction became "normal" as it should, since conditions favoring one
direction over another can change during any flight. As for thermaling, I have
noticed that whichever direction I begin thermaling in any flight (initial
choice based on where I think the thermal is by the clues, not by which
direction I prefer to turn), that seems to be the direction I end up thermaling
for most of that flight ... but there doesn't seem to be any proclivity for
thermaling in either direction overall.

Just a little food for thought. Okay, you guys ... flame away -- "these damn
women pilots, comparing our soaring to figure skating! ... why isn't she baking
cookies?!"
:-)
--Shirley

[Martin Gregorie]

On 10 Mar 2004 07:43:38 -0800, (John) wrote:

>The point I was making was is there benefits for low-time pilots to
>thermal right and land left?
>
None whatsoever where I fly. Because:

- the general circuit direction depends on the day and the run in
use: it is generally picked so the base leg is flown into the cross
wind assuming there is one. IOW everybody routinely flies circuits in
both directions.

- thermalling direction is set by the first glider into a thermal, so
you'd better be able to thermal in either direction if you don't want
an interview with the CFI and/or some verbals after you land.

Our ab initios are taught to deal with this from the outset and don't
seem to have the problems you describe. You should have trimmed for
landing speed on the downwind leg, so where's the problem with keeping
good airspeed through the base turns?

>I myself can turn equally well right or left. But I have noticed I
>prefer thermalling to the right, and landing to the left. Having over
>250 flights, I have plenty of experience going both directions, but
>have developed preference for turning one way or another.
>
I have made just over 400 flights totalling 275 hours since I started
as an ab initio in 2000 and consider myself pretty much a beginner at
this game.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Bill Gribble]

I qualify as "low-time" by anybody's standards. Ab inito, just about to
make my 50th launch this weekend. I'd guess I'll probably go solo some
time in the next couple of months at my current rate of progress -
basically when I stop consistently scaring the guy in the back seat ;)

At our airfield, the Duty Instructor of the day tends to express a
"preferred circuit" for people to follow dependent upon prevailing wind
conditions. We have two crossed runways, 03-210 and 90-270, so, subject
to the wind direction, that's potentially eight different patterns, even
without taking the end of day hanger-flights into account.

Yes, it feels odd to fly off runway 03 when for the last few weeks
prevailing winds have had us using 210. Even odder when a westerly puts
us onto 90. Through preference I think I'd take a right-hand circuit.
But it isn't really that much of an issue even at my level of
experience. I'll take a left-hand circuit if circumstance or position
suggests it better to do so. In much the same way I'll take a left-hand
bend or junction on a bike with little concern, or reverse right into a
parking bay at the supermarket in my car.

Point is I haven't been taught to make either thermalling turns or
circuit turns. I've been taught to fly the aircraft, at all times, to
never fly low and slow and to make my final turn onto approach
well-banked and at a safe height because, amongst other reasons, a
well-banked turn looses less height than a shallow turn and at this
final point in proceedings it's much easier and safer to have to deal
with too much height than with not enough.

I've got to confess, (and I truly mean no offence when I say this) from
where I'm standing, the suggestion of teaching a student to always make
"thermalling turns" to the right and "pattern turns" to the left seemed
on the surface to be such a ridiculous idea that I had to read it a few
times to be certain it was intended at a serious suggestion and not some
sort of silly joke. On reflection and deeper consideration, the
suggestion really hasn't gained any more credibility ;)

--
Bill Gribble

/---------------------------------------\
| http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk |
| http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk |
\---------------------------------------/

[Eric Greenwell]

Jim Vincent wrote:

>>some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
>>determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a therma
>
>
> I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach only
> works about half the time.

If this were true, then that implies turning towards the lifted wing
theory is no better than chance: just flip a coin. But, we know that's
not true, because I and other pilots routinely improve our results by
turning towards the lifted wing.

Perhaps the explanation given above doesn't reflect what Tom actually
does, since I'm sure he is improving his results at least as much as I
am. Or maybe it's a reflection of his grasp of probability, as in: "the
chances of a rope break on tow are 50-50: it'll happen or it won't".

And no need to hyperventilate in Tom's defense, as he's heard that
before from many other people!


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >some pilots are not "in the zone" with their gliders, and could not
> >determine a "lifted wing" if they had rely on it to find a therma
>
> I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach
only
> works about half the time.
>
> Consider three sections of air: calm air, sink before a thermal, and the
lift
> of the thermal itself. Imagine that you're flying along and you happen to
run
> into the sink on the left wing and lift on the right wing (hand flying
really
> helps here). In this case, the lifted wing approach would work; turning
into
> the lifted wing would take you into the lift.
>
> Now consider if you're flying along and run into the calm air on the left
wing
> and the sink on the right wing. If you use the lifted wing approach, you
woud
> turn into the calm air and away from the lift! The best course would be
to
> turn into the lowered wing, drive through the sink and on into the
thermal.
>
> So, it really makes do difference which way you turn. It matters more how
you
> respond to the conditions you experince when you make the turn.
>
IIRC, Tom also mentions that if you turn the wrong way, you complete a 270
to fly directly back into the lift as the quickest correction.

Jim, you need to jump into the PW-2 Gapa thread.

> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

Actually posted from which is a proper munging.

Frank Whiteley

[Martin Gregorie]

On 10 Mar 2004 17:11:48 GMT, (Shirley)
wrote:

....much snippage....

>Just a little food for thought. Okay, you guys ... flame away -- "these damn
>women pilots, comparing our soaring to figure skating! ... why isn't she baking
>cookies?!"
>:-)

That's the best explanation I've heard about naturally handed actions
as distinct from your actual preferred hand. Many thanks.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Jim Vincent]

>
>Jim, you need to jump into the PW-2 Gapa thread.

Thanks Frank. I responded directly to the poster. Two weeks ago, I spoke with
the guy who bought the Gapa and we discussed many of the issues. Hopefully,
I'll get to FL sometime and get to fly it!

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[John]

If we assume we all fly well (either direction), and we all understand
the importance of controlling airspeed during landing, why is the
number one pilot error that is causing injury the stall/spin while
turning to land?

Get away from the idea that you can stall all you want safely at
height, while down low, you no longer have that luxury. Get away from
the idea we all are responsible for flying the plane at all times.
The basic fact is we are all trained and should be able to land
safely.....yet, repeatedly, the same errors are being made by stalling
during the landing pattern.

Is it pilot distraction that creates a laspes in monitoring airspeed?
Or is it habit?

With any physical activity, people develop habits thru repetion. Turn
right 100 times slowly, then turn right fast...it will feel different.
Will you instinctively slow down the fast turn to match the previous
100 slow turns? I think that is very possible.

Here is a way to check your habits. Next booming day, try 10-20 turns
to right at say 40 knots, then speed up to 65 knots. Can you hold 65
knots in a right turn now? Likely, but I bet you glance at the
airspeed a little more than you did in the previous 10-20 turns.

It just seems logical to me if you spend several hours flying slow,
you will tend to continue flying slow unless you specifically make
yourself fly faster. Get distracted, and you will go right back to
flying slow. Talking habits, here.

Is this habit of flying slow contributing to the stall/spin problem
when landing?

[Jim Vincent]

Many good points here.

I recommend establishing the pattern airspeed a few minutes before actually
entering the pattern. This gives time to get used to the sound and feel of the
pattern speed. Also, when doing turns in the pattern, I teach to monitor CAB,
for Coordinate, Airspeed, and Bank.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[ADP]

Well Shirley, you are exactly right.

And Bill, with all due respect,

"Absent a rigging error, (meaning the glider flies straight hands-off - not
forgetting the wing pins) a pilots feeling that he has a "preferred turn
direction" is a red flag warning of a general flying skill deficit that
needs professional attention.",

is just utter nonsense.

There comes a time in any pilots flying life when flying becomes mostly
automatic.
Some aren't there yet but when it happens, it gives one time to concentrate
on finesse
rather than basic execution.

In an intact flying machine, there is never an excuse for a stall spin
accident. Not during landing and not ever!

The aircraft doesn't care whether it is at 100 ft or 1000, the physics of
flying are the same.
That leaves the pilot.

Flying is relatively simple, it requires some coordination, some common
sense and the right attitude - both figuratively and literally.

The best tactic for safe flying and landing I ever heard (and we've all
heard it) is "that looks about right".

Don't worry about circuit rules, radios or even traffic, get the damn thing
on the ground safely and take care of the details later.

So don't stall and you can't spin.

Allan

"Shirley" > wrote in message
...
> bandit111964 (John) wrote:
> >I myself can turn equally well right or left. But I
> >have noticed I prefer thermalling to the right, and
> >landing to the left. Having over 250 flights, I have
> >plenty of experience going both directions, but
> >have developed preference for turning one way or
> >another. (as an aside, I prefer left turns on my
> >motorcycle too....no reason, just like them better).
> >[snip]
>

[Bill Daniels]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> If we assume we all fly well (either direction), and we all understand
> the importance of controlling airspeed during landing, why is the
> number one pilot error that is causing injury the stall/spin while
> turning to land?

John is this a troll, or, are you one of those control freaks who wants to
use safety as a means to tell people what direction to turn and how fast to
fly?

I make no assumption that all pilots fly well - too many years as a CFI-G
for that. At the moment a pilot enters a fatal stall/spin, they were
careless, inept, forgetful or just incredibly rusty. The pilot who doesn't
is not lucky, they are flying well and paying attention. Flying is
EXTREMELY unforgiving of any carelessness.

At the end of the day, good pilots fly and live and bad pilots crash. It's
just that simple. Aviation is Darwinian.

>
> Get away from the idea that you can stall all you want safely at
> height, while down low, you no longer have that luxury. Get away from
> the idea we all are responsible for flying the plane at all times.
> The basic fact is we are all trained and should be able to land
> safely.....yet, repeatedly, the same errors are being made by stalling
> during the landing pattern.

Why? It's the truth. You ARE responsible and WILL be held accountable - if
not by man, by Mother Nature. You'd better hope it's man, Mother Nature is a
bitch - she'll kill you without remorse if you violate Her rules.

All trained to land safely? Probably, but it doesn't matter. What matters
is how well you fly the NEXT pattern and landing. Again, it's not just how
well you were trained, it's how much of that training that you employ in
your NEXT flight.

>
> Is it pilot distraction that creates a laspes in monitoring airspeed?
> Or is it habit?

Pilots are (or should be) trained to deal with distraction. Bad habits?
Maybe, but that means that the pilot needs remedial instruction and that
should have been caught at the last flight review.
>
> With any physical activity, people develop habits thru repetion. Turn
> right 100 times slowly, then turn right fast...it will feel different.
> Will you instinctively slow down the fast turn to match the previous
> 100 slow turns? I think that is very possible.
>
> Here is a way to check your habits. Next booming day, try 10-20 turns
> to right at say 40 knots, then speed up to 65 knots. Can you hold 65
> knots in a right turn now? Likely, but I bet you glance at the
> airspeed a little more than you did in the previous 10-20 turns.
>
> It just seems logical to me if you spend several hours flying slow,
> you will tend to continue flying slow unless you specifically make
> yourself fly faster. Get distracted, and you will go right back to
> flying slow. Talking habits, here.
>
> Is this habit of flying slow contributing to the stall/spin problem
> when landing?

None of the above. If a pilot is doing any of these things, it points
exclusively to poor flying abilities that the pilot should have noted
himself and taken pro-active steps to remedy or should have been noticed by
someone else who takes action.

Safety is the result of just one thing - flying ability - which, among other
things, includes good judgement and the ability to control the aircraft at
all times with the outcome of the flight never in doubt. Without flying
ability there is no hope for any safety at all. With it, there's no need
for artificial rules about turn direction and airspeeds.

Unlike any other segment of aviation, a very large part of gliding activity
takes place in single seat aircraft . This allows a pilots skill levels to
deteriorate and many bad habits to develop out of sight of his peers. We
must compensate either individually by taking responsibility for the
maintenance of our flying skills or collectively through peer review. To do
otherwise is to invite a continuing bad safety record and higher insurance
premiums. To tolerate poor flying ability in ourselves or others, or to
make rules that accommodate it, is to institutionalize the problem.

Spring is less than two weeks away and I expect to read of the usual wave of
accidents as rusty pilots come out of hibernation. Everyone, do yourself,
and the sport, a favor and schedule a flight with your favorite CFI-G.

As you all can tell, I see this issue in black and white - end of sermon.

Bill Daniels

[Shirley]

bandit111964 (John) wrote:
[snip]
>With any physical activity, people develop habits
>thru repetion. Turn right 100 times slowly, then
>turn right fast...it will feel different.

Yes, and a pilot can (or should) recognize that difference whether the
slow/fast turns are done in the same or in different directions.

>Will you instinctively slow down the fast turn to
>match the previous 100 slow turns?

Not if you are in the pattern, no. I don't buy that ideology.

>It just seems logical to me if you spend several
>hours flying slow, you will tend to continue flying
>slow unless you specifically make yourself fly
>faster. Get distracted, and you will go right
>back to flying slow. Talking habits, here.

"Talking habits"? ... if you suspect this might be the case, your suggestion
would only compound the problem of "habits". Understanding that thermaling AND
landing *have to* be done proficiently in both directions (i.e., joining any
established gaggle or when wind changes direction at the runway while you're
in-flight), promoting the habit of ONLY thermaling in one direction and ONLY
landing in the other to avoid stall/spin accidents is fixing what you perceive
to be a problem with an even bigger one -- creating a pilot who only
consistently practices things ONE way. That makes as much sense as suggesting
that instead of learning, understanding and becoming as consistent as possible
setting it up so you're on the glideslope, you intentionally always come in too
high to avoid the tendency to want to pull the nose up on final -- unless I'm
terribly mistaken, both examples are compounding one problem by trying to fix
it with another.

--Shirley

[Bill Daniels]

"ADP" > wrote in message
...
> Well Shirley, you are exactly right.
>
> And Bill, with all due respect,
>
> "Absent a rigging error, (meaning the glider flies straight hands-off -
not
> forgetting the wing pins) a pilots feeling that he has a "preferred turn
> direction" is a red flag warning of a general flying skill deficit that
> needs professional attention.",
>
> is just utter nonsense.
>
> There comes a time in any pilots flying life when flying becomes mostly
> automatic.
> Some aren't there yet but when it happens, it gives one time to
concentrate
> on finesse
> rather than basic execution.
>

If your mental autopilot, just like the mechanical variety, prefers one turn
direction over the other, it needs re-calibration. If your mental autopilot
flies straight, THEN concentrate on finesse.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

John wrote:

> Here is a way to check your habits. Next booming day, try 10-20 turns
> to right at say 40 knots, then speed up to 65 knots. Can you hold 65
> knots in a right turn now?

NO Problem. Not even when I had only a 100 hours.

> Likely, but I bet you glance at the
> airspeed a little more than you did in the previous 10-20 turns.

Not unless I am in the pattern: establish the turn, then maintain it by
attitude. I don't have to monitor the airspeed anymore in a fast turn
than I do in a slow turn; in fact, it would be better to the reverse,
since you are closer to a stall when going slow.

>
> It just seems logical to me if you spend several hours flying slow,
> you will tend to continue flying slow unless you specifically make
> yourself fly faster.

Well, maybe, but that's why you go to the correct pattern speed and set
the trim (many pilots set it slightly forward of the pattern speed).
Then fly by attitude and monitor the airspeed. These are the habits that
you should be building and using.

Get distracted, and you will go right back to
> flying slow. Talking habits, here.

One more thing: thermalling is repeated 360s; patterns are only 90
degree turns (mostly). If you find yourself changing speed significantly
during a 90 degree turn, you need much more instruction on flying by
attitude and monitoring the airspeed in the pattern. I'm not kidding. If
your "habit" is that strong, you need training, not landing in one
direction and thermalling in another.

>
> Is this habit of flying slow contributing to the stall/spin problem
> when landing?

It's hard for me to imagine how countless hours of well executed 360
turns at a slow speed contribute to botching a 90 degree turn near the
ground. I'm guessing you are not flying by attitude, or paying attention
to the other cues to airspeed.

John, what glider are you flying?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kirk Stant]

(John) wrote in message >...

> Is it pilot distraction that creates a laspes in monitoring airspeed?
> Or is it habit?

Probably both - but I think you are missing the point. There is
really only one good habit to have while flying - a good lookout.
Everything else should be based on the task at hand, and performing
the appropriate maneuver to accomplish that task. At a certain level,
it may seem like habit, but that is really skill (and muscle memory)
taking effect.

The unreliability of habit is the reason for having checklists, after
all!

Your observation about turn direction preference is not new, even if
your suggested solution is a bit novel. It's a well known competition
tactic that if you know a certain pilot has a preferred turn
direction, you can probably outclimb him by establishing your thermal
turn in the opposite direction. I find that I prefer to turn left
when racing, and make a conscious effort to thermal both ways (SeeYou
is great for this, as it shows your turn direction percentage when
looking at the flight stats afterwards). Oddly enough, when flying
commercial rides in the usual assortment of Schweizers, I seem to
prefer to turn right. I do notice that most students start off
turning right off tow (as they are taught), and continue turning
right, while race pilots prefer to turn left (as required by rules
near the airport and turnpoints). Makes for some interesting
thermalling...

As others have commented, it is essential to be able to both turn slow
and precisely in a thermal, and turn safely and precisely at low
altitude in the pattern. In either direction. Different tasks, both
important. Practice, practice, practice. I do find that I don't
watch the airspeed indicator very much while thermalling, flying more
by feel and nose position, but look at it A LOT in the pattern.

Kirk
66

[Tim Ward]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> (John) wrote in message
>...
<snip>
> I do notice that most students start off
> turning right off tow (as they are taught), and continue turning
> right, while race pilots prefer to turn left (as required by rules
> near the airport and turnpoints). Makes for some interesting
> thermalling...
<snip>
> Kirk
> 66

Could someone explain _why_ the rules specify left? I can see the point of
everyone turning the same direction, but why not pick the direction in
which you turn after getting off tow?

Tim Ward

[Jim]

> I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach
only
> works about half the time.

Yeah...I head Tom make a similar comment at an SSA Convention some years
ago...Dallas, or maybe Albuquerque.

Derek Piggott, whose presentation followed Tom's, commented, "I wonder who
Tom doesn't like to turn into the lift?"

[Jim]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> > I was recently enlightened by Tom Knauff that the lifted wing approach
>> only works about half the time.

> Yeah...I head Tom make a similar comment at an SSA Convention some years
> ago...Dallas, or maybe Albuquerque.

> Derek Piggott, whose presentation followed Tom's, commented, "I wonder who
> Tom doesn't like to turn into the lift?"

Oooops...make that "wonder WHY" not "wonder WHO"

Anyway...I'm with Derek on this one.

[Chris OCallaghan]

John,

this is the value of the trim handle. By resetting it, if you become
momentarily distracted, you are less likely to let the nose float up.

As you may have no choice in the direction you thermal, you may not
have a choice in the direction of your pattern.

You should be able to transition from climb to cruise and maintain a
speed, regardless what that speed is and your altitude. This is basic
airmanship. If you find this difficult, get help.

Stall spin in the pattern is typically due to poor pattern planning,
often leading to skidded turns at low altitude. And while you must
stall to spin, you will not spin if the you maintain coordinated
controls. This is why your instructor repeatedly told you to check
airspeed and yaw string while flying in the pattern. Down low this is
of paramount importance. There is simply no room for error. Again,
basic airmanship.

You are rationalizing a crutch. Learn not to be distracted. Deal with
problems, but don't let problems create bigger ones by letting your
focus wander from the task at hand -- flying your aircraft.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
John > wrote:
>The point I was making was is there benefits for low-time pilots to
>thermal right and land left?

This is a naive, but certainly not a stupid question.

If everyone did turn right (or left) in all thermals
(presumably at altitude) this at face value would seem to
reduce the chance of a midair, if both pilots can't
see each other for whatever reason.

I'm not suggesting this, just pointing out there
are reasons why this isn't simply an idea to discard
as foolish...


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
John > wrote:
>If we assume we all fly well (either direction), and we all understand
>the importance of controlling airspeed during landing, why is the
>number one pilot error that is causing injury the stall/spin while
>turning to land?

A) Because stall/spins at altitude aren't as often fatal

B) Because a huge portion of the time flying, pulling back on
the stick gives an instantaneous zoom up. This is even true
of airline pilots. Because the aircraft is flown so often on the
front side of the curve, despite knowing and training that
pulling back on the stick doesn't always make the aircraft go
up, seeing it happen that way the last bijillion times
you did it is sometimes psychologically compelling.

I'd be willing to bet that the ratio of stall/spin fatalities to
other causes is very different depending on the recency and
number of stalls the pilot has performed. I'd bet CFIs
who regularly instruct these things have a much lower
ratio while acting as PIC in normal solo flight than other
pilots.

The airlines seem to know this and that's why they love
those simulators. On the bad side, some of the airlines
sim check pilots don't force the plane into a stall that the pilot must
recover from, and I suspect that some pilots who avoid stalls in
the sim may not see them for a long time, and may not
recover correctly when they unexpectedly occur.

I think some recency in stall practice is really important.
Of course I also stopped my prop and dove for air-restart
yesterday to stay current in that too...

Nothing like recent practice to remind one of the hazards...




--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>John,
>
>this is the value of the trim handle. By resetting it, if you become
>momentarily distracted, you are less likely to let the nose float up.

I had an interesting trim quandry a few days ago. Should one
trim the AC-4c retract nose down or nose up for landing?

If nose down, then the pilot is less likely to accidentally stall
on landing. But as the two pilots before me put it on the
nose, perhaps there is a downside.

Trim nose up, and then after landing, one is less likely to pop it on
the nose. Just make sure to apply pressure forward for landing.

I'm a fan of more nose down trim than required for a certain airspeed,
so I constantly have a tiny back pressure while flying. Maybe
pulling is less tiring than pushing too...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Chris OCallaghan > wrote:
>
>>John,
>>
>>this is the value of the trim handle. By resetting it, if you become
>>momentarily distracted, you are less likely to let the nose float up.
>
>
> I had an interesting trim quandry a few days ago. Should one
> trim the AC-4c retract nose down or nose up for landing?
>
> If nose down, then the pilot is less likely to accidentally stall
> on landing. But as the two pilots before me put it on the
> nose, perhaps there is a downside.

I suggest more likely reasons are a forward CG, braking too hard, and
not doing a "fully held off" landing, which ends up with the stick in
your lap.
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[ADP]

I can't let this one go. Where in heaven's name do you get your
information?
Your assertions re airline pilots is absurd.

Here are the stall maneuver requirements for an ATP check ride:

B. TASK: APPROACHES TO STALLS
REFERENCES: FAR Part 61; AC 61-21; FSB Report; Pilot's Operating
Handbook, AFM.
THREE approaches to stall are required, as follows (unless otherwise
specified by the FSB Report):
1. One in the takeoff configuration (except where the airplane
uses only zero-flap takeoff configuration) or approach configuration.
2. One in a clean configuration.
3. One in a landing configuration.
One of these approaches to a stall must be accomplished while in a
turn using a bank angle of 15 to 30°.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits adequate knowledge of the factors which influence stall
characteristics, including the use of various drag configurations, power
settings, pitch attitudes, weights, and bank angles. Also, exhibits adequate
knowledge of the proper procedure for resuming normal flight.
2. Selects an entry altitude, when accomplished in an airplane, that
is in accordance with the AFM or Operating Handbook, but in no case lower
than an altitude that will allow recovery to be safely completed at a
minimum of 3,000 feet (900 meters) AGL. When accomplished in an FTD or
flight simulator, the entry altitude may be at low, intermediate, or high
altitude as appropriate for the airplane and the configuration, at the
discretion of the examiner.
3. Observes the area is clear of other aircraft prior to
accomplishing an approach to a stall.
4. While maintaining altitude, slowly establishes the pitch attitude
(using trim or elevator/stabilizer), bank angle, and power setting that will
induce stall at the desired target airspeed.
5. Announces the first indication of an impending stall (such as
buffeting, stick shaker, decay of control effectiveness, and any other cues
related to the specific airplane design characteristics) and initiates
recovery or as directed by the examiner (using maximum power or as directed
by the examiner).
6. Recovers to a reference airspeed, altitude and heading, allowing
only the acceptable altitude or airspeed loss, and heading deviation.
7. Demonstrates smooth, positive airplane control during entry,
approach to a stall, and recovery.

In several hundred ATP evaluations,including PCs, PTs, line checks and ATP
rating rides, - in both simulators and airplanes - I have never seen
a applicant who thought that pulling back on the yoke always made the
aircraft go up.
In fact, almost the opposite was true. During the wind shear accidents of
the '70s, it was very hard to get the
average ATP pilot to fly on the edge of the stick shaker (which gave maximum
performance during a departure or go around
wind shear situation.)

Sim check pilots don't demonstrate full stalls during instruction or check
rides because it is not required and would serve no
useful purpose. The point is to recognize the onset of a stall and never
let one develop.

By the time a pilot gets to - and through - airline training. all the
nonsense information that surrounds flying is pretty much excised.

One could only hope that this were true about RAS, as well.

Allan Pratt
Minden, NV



>This is even true of airline pilots. Because the aircraft is flown
>so often on the front side of the curve, despite knowing and training that
> pulling back on the stick doesn't always make the aircraft go
> up, seeing it happen that way the last bijillion times
> you did it is sometimes psychologically compelling.
>
>
> The airlines seem to know this and that's why they love
> those simulators. On the bad side, some of the airlines
> sim check pilots don't force the plane into a stall that the pilot must
> recover from, and I suspect that some pilots who avoid stalls in
> the sim may not see them for a long time, and may not
> recover correctly when they unexpectedly occur.
>
> > Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Martin Gregorie]

On 10 Mar 2004 21:35:29 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>In article >,
>John > wrote:
>>The point I was making was is there benefits for low-time pilots to
>>thermal right and land left?
>
>This is a naive, but certainly not a stupid question.
>
>If everyone did turn right (or left) in all thermals
>(presumably at altitude) this at face value would seem to
>reduce the chance of a midair, if both pilots can't
>see each other for whatever reason.
>
It sometimes sort of works. There was an "only circle left within 10
km of the field" rule in force during my, so far, one and only
competition and in general it worked pretty well. However, on one task
I made a restart about 35 minutes later, by which time non-competition
flying had restarted. This traffic was not bound by such a rule, but
did raise a potential dilemma - do you obey the normal rule of
circling in the same direction the first guy in the thermal if he's
turning right and risk a DQ for not turning left within 10km or do you
look for another thermal and risk a time-consuming low save or even a
land-out near the field and a blown task?

Bottom line: such a rule cannot work unless its rigidly applied to all
traffic and I don't think this is either likely or sensible.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Andy Durbin]

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message
>
> Could someone explain _why_ the rules specify left? I can see the point of
> everyone turning the same direction, but why not pick the direction in
> which you turn after getting off tow?
>
> Tim Ward

Tim,

There is no need to *turn* right after release from tow (USA). Just
release, roll right, and as soon as tug clearance is assured, roll
left and continue to turn left.

Most contest tug pilots are gone so fast there is no need to even make
the initial momentary right roll.

The requirement to thermal left comes from the fact that contests used
to require fixed cameras and they were required to be mounted on the
left side. (again USA).

Andy (GY)

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy Durbin wrote:

> "Tim Ward" > wrote in message
>
>>Could someone explain _why_ the rules specify left? I can see the point of
>>everyone turning the same direction, but why not pick the direction in
>>which you turn after getting off tow?
>>
>>Tim Ward
>
>
> Tim,
>
> There is no need to *turn* right after release from tow (USA). Just
> release, roll right, and as soon as tug clearance is assured, roll
> left and continue to turn left.
>
> Most contest tug pilots are gone so fast there is no need to even make
> the initial momentary right roll.
>
> The requirement to thermal left comes from the fact that contests used
> to require fixed cameras and they were required to be mounted on the
> left side. (again USA).

No cameras now. I think it's time to change the rule, but I'll leave
that to the folks that still take aerotows.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

ADP > wrote:
>
>In several hundred ATP evaluations,including PCs, PTs, line checks and ATP
>rating rides, - in both simulators and airplanes - I have never seen
>a applicant who thought that pulling back on the yoke always made the
>aircraft go up.

Not much information there. An aircraft doesn't "always" yaw nose right
when you apply right rudder either. "Always" is a pretty bland
proof.

"An applicant" is a crappy example of what a pilot will do after 10
hours of flying on an empty stomach then trying to land
at a Cuban or Hong Kong airport at night with a quirky
approach. If you want realism, take an airline pilot at the
END of a 12 hour day, stick him in a sim, and don't tell him
which plane he's flying (no type airspeed info). Then spill
hot coffee in his lap and have his FO do all the
callouts in Yiddish. Then he will "sometimes" pull back on
the stick and the plane will go down...

Ditto for the 1-26 guy at the end of his 500km...

>Sim check pilots don't demonstrate full stalls during instruction or check
>rides because it is not required and would serve no
>useful purpose.

I read an accident report of a cargo flight landing at Cuba.
On the recorder, the FO and FE both called out warning for
low airspeed. The stick shook, and the Captain put
the plane into the ground.

In several reports (maybe ATR's?) ice buildup that wasn't expected to
happen caused the aircraft to stall, resulting in fatalities.

I wonder if, right before impact, these pilots said
to themselves "Gee, I'd do a stall recovery, but I forgot how,
since I haven't done one since my ATP checkride decades
ago. I wish the sim guy 4 months ago had required me to
show a recovery from an unexpected full stall and thought it would serve
some useful purpose. Oh well...AHHHHRRRRGGGGG!!!!
<sound of crunching metal, smell of burning flesh>"

>The point is to recognize the onset of a stall and never
>let one develop.

And I guess if it does happen unexpectedly despite repeatedly
successfully avoiding it while well rested and flying the sim, just
accept your fate or try to remember back to your ATP checkride, eh?
Not for me, brother...

>By the time a pilot gets to - and through - airline training. all the
>nonsense information that surrounds flying is pretty much excised.
>
>Allan Pratt
>Minden, NV

Which is why airline pilots "pretty much" don't crash airliners.
All that's left is the rare, unexpected cases. Some of these
crashes involve emergencies: not something an abnormal
procedure covers, but something the pilot, checkpilot, and/or manufacturer
never anticipated.

What does this have to do with RAS? Plenty. I suggest
pilots who are very experienced can benefit from practicing
things that are VERY "rare." As you get more experienced, these
things become even rarer (because skill and judgement make them so.)
Slack rope, the need for takeoff abort, unexpected need for
release, full stalls, failed instruments, etc. are rare because
super experienced pilot skills are so good one avoids these
things well.

I suggest that if one spends enough time in the safe regime, the
rare events happen extremely rarely, but when they do, they
are more unexpected, more mentally jarring, and more potentially
devastating. The mental disbelief of an experienced pilot can be
more profound and more crippling than for a novice. I myself
have had a delayed reaction to a recovery because of disbelief
and had to go back to training from many years past to recover.
And I've seen this while flying with other experienced pilots...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[rjciii]

"ADP" > wrote:

> Your assertions re airline pilots is absurd.

> By the time a pilot gets to - and through - airline training. all the
> nonsense information that surrounds flying is pretty much excised.

> One could only hope that this were true about RAS, as well.


As an ex-airline pilot having just a few [ten thousands] hours of
flying, I just can't help myself from chiming in on this one:

1. Most airline pilots are indeed absurd. ;-)

2. Airline training is absolutely chock-full of nonsense information.

3. RAS, too, is most certainly full of nonsense information (like
people arguing about what it would be like to soar on Mars, for
instance).

As far as pulling on the yoke, all I can attest to is at first the
houses get smaller and smaller. But if one keeps pulling on the yoke
the houses surely will get big again!

BTW, I like the idea of designated turn directions. When driving, I
make all of my turns to the left so as not to get confused with the
right turn I must make into my garage when parking...

I guess I better never move, eh?

As far as this thread goes, I can only hope that the soaring season
gets here...AND SOON!

Ray

[ADP]

Well Mark,

After defending the honor of Airline Pilots,
I suppose that I could be forgiven the fact that
I agree with your last two paragraphs, to wit:

> What does this have to do with RAS? Plenty. I suggest
> pilots who are very experienced can benefit from practicing
> things that are VERY "rare." As you get more experienced, these
> things become even rarer (because skill and judgement make them so.)
> Slack rope, the need for takeoff abort, unexpected need for
> release, full stalls, failed instruments, etc. are rare because
> super experienced pilot skills are so good one avoids these
> things well.
>
> I suggest that if one spends enough time in the safe regime, the
> rare events happen extremely rarely, but when they do, they
> are more unexpected, more mentally jarring, and more potentially
> devastating. The mental disbelief of an experienced pilot can be
> more profound and more crippling than for a novice. I myself
> have had a delayed reaction to a recovery because of disbelief
> and had to go back to training from many years past to recover.
> And I've seen this while flying with other experienced pilots...

It's like saying puppy dogs are cute. Of course you are mostly right
but it does not entirely explain why experienced pilots do dumb things.

I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
about it, but I don't understand it.

To take your thesis to its logical extent, I suppose I am an accident just
waiting to happen, as are we all. With over 15,000 hours of accident
free flying, I guess it's time to hang it up. (He says, modestly.)

So what's the point? How can we all benefit from these observations?

I'll check back with you after soaring on Mars with my flying wing, if I
survive.

Allan

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
ADP > wrote:
>Well Mark,
>
>After defending the honor of Airline Pilots,
>I suppose that I could be forgiven the fact that
>I agree with your last two paragraphs, to wit:
>
>> What does this have to do with RAS? Plenty. I suggest
>> pilots who are very experienced can benefit from practicing
>> things that are VERY "rare." As you get more experienced, these
>> things become even rarer (because skill and judgement make them so.)
>> Slack rope, the need for takeoff abort, unexpected need for
>> release, full stalls, failed instruments, etc. are rare because
>> super experienced pilot skills are so good one avoids these
>> things well.
>>
>> I suggest that if one spends enough time in the safe regime, the
>> rare events happen extremely rarely, but when they do, they
>> are more unexpected, more mentally jarring, and more potentially
>> devastating. The mental disbelief of an experienced pilot can be
>> more profound and more crippling than for a novice. I myself
>> have had a delayed reaction to a recovery because of disbelief
>> and had to go back to training from many years past to recover.
>> And I've seen this while flying with other experienced pilots...
>
>It's like saying puppy dogs are cute. Of course you are mostly right
>but it does not entirely explain why experienced pilots do dumb things.
>
>I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
>an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
>about it, but I don't understand it.

The accident reports from the last ten years for gliders indicate
two ridge soaring stall/spins, two airframe failures during stall/spin
or recovery, and 1 C.G. stall spin for commercial pilots.

Out of 24 fatal accidents.

This seems quite different from the accidents of low time pilots
(which include some classic base to final accidents).

>
>To take your thesis to its logical extent, I suppose I am an accident just
>waiting to happen, as are we all. With over 15,000 hours of accident
>free flying, I guess it's time to hang it up. (He says, modestly.)

If you've been accident free for a long time, you may have developed
self-discipline which results in self-training which helps you to
continuously be "recent" in your experiences. Maybe you
fly a variety of aircraft which helps you to avoid repetitive
complacency. Maybe you occasionally stop your prop for an air
restart in a new aircraft. Maybe you spin a new glider
once in a while to keep yourself sharp.

If you do, this may be what is keeping you from having
an accident. Hours are not the only metric. "Just because
a man eats every day doesn't make him a gourmet." I liked that quote :)
Hours just show that the overall attitude of the pilot
hasn't killed him yet...

>
>sO WHAT'S THE POINT? hOW CAN WE ALL BENEFIT FROM THESE OBSERVATIONS?

Practice those rare occurances, and try to avoid the arrogant
assumptions that "it can't happen to me." Self-discipline and
the awareness of the little mistakes is really valuable in
avoiding the big mistakes. Finally, study the accident reports
and practice things that will ensure you don't repeat the
mistakes of OTHERS either. I've had a heart-wrenching
session where I said "that failed spin recovery with the
excess speed and outboard wing sections failing could have happened because
of a wind-up ASI. Maybe they didn't know their airspeed." Then
whenever I see that kind of ASI, I mentally note this is a
potential problem.

Most of us are probably engineers, so we have critical,
analytical minds anyway. Make the "what if's" FUN.

Above all, for even the little mistakes, don't be
"that guy" who always blames it on somebody/something else...
fess' up and make it a learning experience for everyone...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[ADP]

Yes.

Allan

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:40513bc3@darkstar...
> In article >,
>
> Above all, for even the little mistakes, don't be
> "that guy" who always blames it on somebody/something else...
> fess' up and make it a learning experience for everyone...
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Chris OCallaghan]

Mark,

you make a good point regarding learning from others' mistakes. I once
heard Paddy Welles give an interesting talk on Denial and its effects,
some expected, some less so. It boiled down to a warning... if you
look at someone else's misfortune and cannot see his fate befalling
you, then you've learned nothing, blinded by denial. Problem is,
denial is an important part of maintaining a competitive edge,
justifying risk taking. Finding the balance is important. Knowing when
to stop being a hero even moreso.

Many years ago a friend was crippled after a low release from tow
leading to a spin. The cause of the accident was distraction... a bee
had joined him in the cockpit. He was allergic to their stings. I
thought about that accident a long time. Not about bees, but about
other things that might happen in the cockpit, so unusual or
frightening that they might divert my attention from flying -- and
cost me my life as a result.

I came up with a handful of possibilities -- fire, snake, canopy loss,
control loss, harness failure, cramp... point is, I decided to develop
a process for dealing with such emergencies. When I had my bee
encounter (2 of them woke up on final glide -- one had crawled up my
pants leg for warmth, the other nestled between my shirt back and
waistband) I got past the initial shudder, slowed down a little, then
attended to isolating the one up my pants leg. The other I had no
control over. After landing, with help from the ground crew, we set
both of them free, none of the three of us any the worse for wear.
Point is, I'd thought this through. Not how I was going to deal with
the bees, but how I would deal with my reaction to them.

[Brian Case]

<snip>
> I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
> an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
> about it, but I don't understand it.
<snip>

To become that pilot try a downwind turn at about 200 feet while
landing in a feild that has livestock/fences or other distractions.

The point is nearly every pilot that inadvertantly spun it in close to
the ground was not thinking I am about to spin. Instead they were
thinking things more like:

Am I going to make past that fence?
Am I going to clear those trees?
Will I get stopped before the end of the field?
Is that cow going to dart in front of me?
How am I going to get the glider out of the field?
How am I going to contact my crew?
Where is that other glider?
Did I put my beer in the cooler?

Meanwhile back in the cockpit the ASI is hovering over the bottom of
the white(green) arc. The glider looks like it has plenty of airspeed
because the ground looks like it is screaming past it due to it being
so close and also because it is going downwind.

Then: the nose drops and or a wing drops. Ask any pilot what control
input makes the nose go up and what makes a wing go up. 99.9% will say
pulling back on the stick and moving the stick away from the dropping
wing. What do you think the most likely response for a pilot that is
thinking "am I going to clear those trees" is when the wing and nose
drop? Give yourself a star if you said pull back on the stick and put
in opposite aileron. The only pilot that would push forward on the
stick is the one that recongnized this situation as a stall. If you
are to distracted to recognize a stall when you think everything is
just fine you will react entirely incorrectly and probably hit the
ground wondering what broke on the glider because you have the stick
all the way back and full aileron that nose is still dropping and
wings are not leveling.

I have watched students (who knew better) do this at altitude hundreds
of times. I have been there done that myself once is a 1-26
(fortunatly) on an off feild landing. As the 1-26 began to shudder I
glanced at the airspeed and pushed the nose down. Lowering the nose
very hard to do when it looks like you are going fast and the ground
is close. Very simlar feeling to the "leans" (feeling like your
turning when the instruments say your not) when instrument flying.

IMO. most stall spin accidents at low level are caused by the illusion
of speed when you are close to the ground. Possibly illusions of
attitude caused by lack of a distant horizon. And most importantly by
the pilot not recognizing they are in a potentional stall spin
situation due to these factors, experience level (high or low), and
workload.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...
> I suggest that if one spends enough time in the safe regime, the
> rare events happen extremely rarely, but when they do, they
> are more unexpected, more mentally jarring, and more potentially
> devastating. The mental disbelief of an experienced pilot can be
> more profound and more crippling than for a novice. I myself
> have had a delayed reaction to a recovery because of disbelief
> and had to go back to training from many years past to recover.
> And I've seen this while flying with other experienced pilots...
> ...

I found how to avoid that: become instructor, so you have to
routinely demonstrate the proper reaction :-)

[Bill Daniels]

"Brian Case" > wrote in message
om...
> <snip>
> > I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
> > an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
> > about it, but I don't understand it.
> <snip>
>
> To become that pilot try a downwind turn at about 200 feet while
> landing in a feild that has livestock/fences or other distractions.
>
> The point is nearly every pilot that inadvertantly spun it in close to
> the ground was not thinking I am about to spin. Instead they were
> thinking things more like:
>
> Am I going to make past that fence?
> Am I going to clear those trees?
> Will I get stopped before the end of the field?
> Is that cow going to dart in front of me?
> How am I going to get the glider out of the field?
> How am I going to contact my crew?
> Where is that other glider?
> Did I put my beer in the cooler?
>
> Meanwhile back in the cockpit the ASI is hovering over the bottom of
> the white(green) arc. The glider looks like it has plenty of airspeed
> because the ground looks like it is screaming past it due to it being
> so close and also because it is going downwind.
>
> Then: the nose drops and or a wing drops. Ask any pilot what control
> input makes the nose go up and what makes a wing go up. 99.9% will say
> pulling back on the stick and moving the stick away from the dropping
> wing. What do you think the most likely response for a pilot that is
> thinking "am I going to clear those trees" is when the wing and nose
> drop? Give yourself a star if you said pull back on the stick and put
> in opposite aileron. The only pilot that would push forward on the
> stick is the one that recongnized this situation as a stall. If you
> are to distracted to recognize a stall when you think everything is
> just fine you will react entirely incorrectly and probably hit the
> ground wondering what broke on the glider because you have the stick
> all the way back and full aileron that nose is still dropping and
> wings are not leveling.
>
> I have watched students (who knew better) do this at altitude hundreds
> of times. I have been there done that myself once is a 1-26
> (fortunatly) on an off feild landing. As the 1-26 began to shudder I
> glanced at the airspeed and pushed the nose down. Lowering the nose
> very hard to do when it looks like you are going fast and the ground
> is close. Very simlar feeling to the "leans" (feeling like your
> turning when the instruments say your not) when instrument flying.
>
> IMO. most stall spin accidents at low level are caused by the illusion
> of speed when you are close to the ground. Possibly illusions of
> attitude caused by lack of a distant horizon. And most importantly by
> the pilot not recognizing they are in a potentional stall spin
> situation due to these factors, experience level (high or low), and
> workload.
>
> Brian Case
> CFIIG/ASEL

Brian makes a good case about illusions and distractions. I have always
asked my students to make an evaluation of how difficult an impending
landing is likely to be before entering the pattern.

Then:
1. Consciously set all else aside and concentrate on flying a perfect
pattern and landing.
2. Realize that if he screws it up badly enough, he will be the lead story
on the evening news.
3. Increase instrument scan rate while consciously avoiding instrument
fixation.
4. Continue to evaluate the sight picture of the approach and the
surrounding airspace.
5, Make small corrections early rather than big corrections late.

In short, notch up alertness and really THINK about what is happening - RISE
TO THE OCCASION.

Practicing a bunch of skidding turn spin entries at safe altitude helps too.
The first few of these seem very quick and sneaky (If you use a decent
trainer) but once a student gets used to the sensations it seems like the
glider is providing HUGE indications that it doesn't like how it is being
flown.

I also agree with ADP that it's hard to comprehend how pilots spin a glider
on a turn to final. Landing a glider is incredibly easy compared to more
complicated aircraft. You really have only one instrument to monitor - the
airspeed. A glider pilot has fantastic visibility from the cockpit,
extraordinarily powerful controls to aid him in making a precise landing and
a very slow approach speed so he shouldn't feel rushed.

Yet, it DOES happen. In my mind, it can only speak to VERY poor flying
skills employed at the critical moment. We CAN do better.

Compare the leisurely approach and landing of a glider on a sunny afternoon
to the following from a Navy pilot friend of mine.

Location: Gulf of Alaska.
Time: 0300 local
Weather: One half mile and 200 feet in driving rain. Sea state 4. Sea temp
0C.
Aircraft: E2 Hawkeye - one turning and one burning - scattered system
failures. Six SOB.
Carrier: Pitching deck. Angle deck clear but disabled aircraft forward.
Options - none.

She hooked the number three wire.

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Bill Daniels > wrote:
>
>"Brian Case" > wrote in message
om...
>> <snip>
>> > I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
>> > an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
>> > about it, but I don't understand it.
>> <snip>
>>
>> The point is nearly every pilot that inadvertantly spun it in close to
>> the ground was not thinking I am about to spin. Instead they were
>> thinking things more like:

Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?

Sure sure, "note required by type certification."
Just because we CAN make gliders without stall warning devices,
SHOULD we?

In the Nimbus 4DM and the 60 degree bank stall accidents I read, I wonder
if this would have helped...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[ADP]

My response to this is, "don't do that". Do not be distracted from your
primary goal of getting on the ground safely.
Kill the cow, screw the crops, go between the trees, the hell with the
pattern ---- do not stall and you will walk away.

Allan

"Brian Case" > wrote in message
om...
> <snip>
>> I can not, for the life of me, understand how a pilot gets into
>> an inadvertant spin close to the ground. I have seen it and read
>> about it, but I don't understand it.
> <snip>
>
> To become that pilot try a downwind turn at about 200 feet while
> landing in a feild that has livestock/fences or other distractions.
>
> The point is nearly every pilot that inadvertantly spun it in close to
> the ground was not thinking I am about to spin. Instead they were
> thinking things more like:
>
> Am I going to make past that fence?
> Am I going to clear those trees?
> Will I get stopped before the end of the field?
> Is that cow going to dart in front of me?
> How am I going to get the glider out of the field?
> How am I going to contact my crew?
> Where is that other glider?
> Did I put my beer in the cooler?
>
>....Snip....

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>>>The point is nearly every pilot that inadvertantly spun it in close to
>>>the ground was not thinking I am about to spin. Instead they were
>>>thinking things more like:
>
>
> Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
> isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
> much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
> to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?

It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any numbers?
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

On 3/12/04 7:38 AM, in article
, "Chris OCallaghan"
> wrote:

> Point is, I'd thought this through. Not how I was going to deal with
> the bees, but how I would deal with my reaction to them.

A valuable reminder, Chris -- so much better than reading a post from
someone theorizing about something he hasn¹t actually done.

The pilot is always the biggest challenge in aviation.



Jack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jack]

On 3/12/04 2:05 PM, in article 40521816$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
> wrote:

> Where's the stall warning horn?

On the Cessna, where it belongs. Don't even think about putting one in a
sailplane.

Soaring ought to be about flying the aircraft, not just monitoring the
government-mandated distractions. The thing would either be activated during
most thermaling, or have such a close tolerance as to give no useful warning
to those who would most need it -- and they are expensive. Would you
recommend flashing lights on the panel, a speaker tone to compete with the
vario, or both? Perhaps you would also like to incorporate a stick-shaker?


Jack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Nyal Williams]

At 20:54 12 March 2004, Adp wrote:
>My response to this is, 'don't do that'. Do not be
>distracted from your
>primary goal of getting on the ground safely.
>Kill the cow, screw the crops, go between the trees,
>the hell with the
>pattern ---- do not stall and you will walk away.
>
>Allan
>

I agree, except for one thing; if you kill the cow,the
cow will also kill you. I hit a deer at night with
a Buick; no glider would have survived it.

[Shaber CJ]

>It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
>have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
>accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any numbers?

I used to own and fly a Cessna 340. That 340 was a great airplane but I
noticed in very rough conditions only in landing configuration I could hear the
stall warning horn. I think it was caused by the stall warning tab being
lifted by the action of a gust or the motion of the airplane to the gust. The
point being, a horn may wake you up, but there are better ways of determining
if you are in a stall. The first time I heard this horn I was landing at
Bishop, CA on a very turbulent day. My reaction was to look at the airspeed
then to do nothing. It got my attention but I was not stalled and it was just
a distraction. Fly the damn airplane for the given conditions. Yes, sometimes
that means a left turn or a right turn and at different speeds. If you cannot
do that please do everyone a favor and get more training until you are
comfortable in either direction.

[Andreas Maurer]

On 12 Mar 2004 12:05:42 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


>Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
>isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
>much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
>to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?

There are gliders that are equipped with stall audio warnings. Most of
these stall warnings have been switched off permanently because they
were yelling all the time while thermalling.

Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2004 12:05:42 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
>>isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
>>much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
>>to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?
>
>
> There are gliders that are equipped with stall audio warnings. Most of
> these stall warnings have been switched off permanently because they
> were yelling all the time while thermalling.

THe difficulty is getting a true stall warning, rather than an airpeed
alert (even if it is adjusted to G loading). Other difficulties with the
type Andreas mentions is it doesn't know when the spoilers are out, the
flap position, or the bugs on the leading edge.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Dave Martin]

At 23:00 12 March 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2004 12:05:42 -0800,
>(Mark James Boyd)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly
>>baffled why there
>>isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this
>>really that
>>much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused
>>by having
>>to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?
>
>There are gliders that are equipped with stall audio
>warnings. Most of
>these stall warnings have been switched off permanently
>because they
>were yelling all the time while thermalling.
>
>Bye
>Andreas

In sailplanes the stall warning instrument is a little
bit of grey matter fitted just behind the pilots eyes
and between his ears

Byeeeeeeeee

Dave
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:20:09 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:


>THe difficulty is getting a true stall warning, rather than an airpeed
>alert (even if it is adjusted to G loading). Other difficulties with the
>type Andreas mentions is it doesn't know when the spoilers are out, the
>flap position, or the bugs on the leading edge.

Airspeed alert is one problem, but even if you get an AoA alert you'll
be close to stall AoA very often if you are circling in a gusty
thermal.
And something that beeps all the time during a flight will not be
taken seriously anymore after a short time.

Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:20:09 -0800, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote
>>THe difficulty is getting a true stall warning, rather than an airpeed
>>alert (even if it is adjusted to G loading). Other difficulties with the
>>type Andreas mentions is it doesn't know when the spoilers are out, the
>>flap position, or the bugs on the leading edge.
>
>
> Airspeed alert is one problem, but even if you get an AoA alert you'll
> be close to stall AoA very often if you are circling in a gusty
> thermal.
> And something that beeps all the time during a flight will not be
> taken seriously anymore after a short time.

This could actually be an asset to the pilot: if the warning is heard
often, it probably means the pilot is circling too slowly for best
performance and should speed up. An airfoil that is stalling, even
momentarily, is producing too much drag.

For example, the newer airfoils, like the one on my ASH 26 E, have a
larger separation between stall speed and best circling speed than the
earlier airfoil designs. You can fly controllably slower than you should
for best climb performance. This situation makes it easier to design a
suitable AoA warning device than on the earlier airfoils.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[tango4]

Come on guys........

Wheel down ....stall warning on.

Wheel up......Stall warning off.

Simple.

Ian

[tango4]

Moral?

Don't land gliders in fields at night!

Ian

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 20:54 12 March 2004, Adp wrote:
> >My response to this is, 'don't do that'. Do not be
> >distracted from your
> >primary goal of getting on the ground safely.
> >Kill the cow, screw the crops, go between the trees,
> >the hell with the
> >pattern ---- do not stall and you will walk away.
> >
> >Allan
> >
>
> I agree, except for one thing; if you kill the cow,the
> cow will also kill you. I hit a deer at night with
> a Buick; no glider would have survived it.
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
>> isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
>> much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
>> to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?
>
>It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
>have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
>accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any numbers?

I looked up the last ten years of gliders (49 fatalities)
and then I looked up a three month window of airplane fatalities
from 3/94 to 6/94 (102 fatalities). I got lazy and didn't want
to look through more than 100, but I wanted to see final reports, so...

Gliders: 21 stalls of 49 fatalities = 43%

If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 21 of 42 = 50%

Airplanes: 9 stalls of 102 fatalities = 9%

If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 9 of 91 = 10%

A bunch of the airplane ones were also night and/or IFR (less than
half). But it seemed real clear that more of the glider fatalities
could have been stalls. Anyway, I concluded that airplane guys
don't stall very much close to the ground...

I was also VERY surprised to find a lot of medical problems
with airplenes, and I don't think even one fatal glider accident
due to a medical condition. This is really surprising...I'll
need to look at all 250 fatal glider reports at some point to
see if there are ANY medical fatalities...

Anyway, yes glider pilots die from stalls as a real big
factor. I think it's because they don't have warning devices.
Hells bells, just hook 'em to the gear down and spoiler cracked
switches, so they're off the rest of the time (thermalling).

Or maybe somebody has a better idea. I dunno, I'm just real
surprised we don't have any stall horns at all on any gliders...



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Jack > wrote:
>On 3/12/04 2:05 PM, in article 40521816$1@darkstar, "Mark James Boyd"
> wrote:
>
>> Where's the stall warning horn?
>
>On the Cessna, where it belongs. Don't even think about putting one in a
>sailplane.
>
>Soaring ought to be about flying the aircraft, not just monitoring the
>government-mandated distractions. The thing would either be activated during
>most thermaling, or have such a close tolerance as to give no useful warning
>to those who would most need it -- and they are expensive. Would you
>recommend flashing lights on the panel, a speaker tone to compete with the
>vario, or both? Perhaps you would also like to incorporate a stick-shaker?

Who said anything about the gubmint? And what would I want
with a vario during the landing phase, off-field or not?
If I've got the gear down and the spoilers out, I'd be
playing the fool to try using the vario for anything...

Have the vario shut itself off and let the stall warning
buzzer on...

Expensive? I couldn't comment on that...And are the fatal accidents
so rare as to make this idea pointless? Perhaps...

As far as spoilers and flaps changing the stall speed, I suppose that's
glider dependent on how much. And as far as bugs, again I
don't know how far off the normal stall speed you'd see...
Maybe it's negligible, maybe not. Dunno...


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2004 12:05:42 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Where's the stall warning horn? I'm still utterly baffled why there
>>>isn't a stall warning device on each wingtip? Is this really that
>>>much extra drag? Is it more drag than that caused by having
>>>to make a wing design that buffets before a full stall?
>>
>>
>> There are gliders that are equipped with stall audio warnings. Most of
>> these stall warnings have been switched off permanently because they
>> were yelling all the time while thermalling.
>
>THe difficulty is getting a true stall warning, rather than an airpeed
>alert (even if it is adjusted to G loading). Other difficulties with the
>type Andreas mentions is it doesn't know when the spoilers are out, the
>flap position, or the bugs on the leading edge.

Well, on Cezznas and others, it's just a dorky cheap little tab
which is at the right angle to flip up and close
a circuit when the AOA is pretty close to stall. The Beech
Duchess has 2, one for not so much flaps (on one wing),
one for lotsa flaps (on the other wing).

I guess I'm not even that surprised they aren't on nost
sailplanes, I'm interested to know of the folks who've built
their own, have you guys thought of trying it? Man
I'd love to know what them wingtips are doing...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
>>have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
>>accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any numbers?
>
>
> I looked up the last ten years of gliders (49 fatalities)
> and then I looked up a three month window of airplane fatalities
> from 3/94 to 6/94 (102 fatalities). I got lazy and didn't want
> to look through more than 100, but I wanted to see final reports, so...
>
> Gliders: 21 stalls of 49 fatalities = 43%
>
> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 21 of 42 = 50%
>
> Airplanes: 9 stalls of 102 fatalities = 9%
>
> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 9 of 91 = 10%
>
> A bunch of the airplane ones were also night and/or IFR (less than
> half). But it seemed real clear that more of the glider fatalities
> could have been stalls. Anyway, I concluded that airplane guys
> don't stall very much close to the ground...
>
> I was also VERY surprised to find a lot of medical problems
> with airplenes, and I don't think even one fatal glider accident
> due to a medical condition. This is really surprising...I'll
> need to look at all 250 fatal glider reports at some point to
> see if there are ANY medical fatalities...
>
> Anyway, yes glider pilots die from stalls as a real big
> factor. I think it's because they don't have warning devices.
> Hells bells, just hook 'em to the gear down and spoiler cracked
> switches, so they're off the rest of the time (thermalling).
>
> Or maybe somebody has a better idea. I dunno, I'm just real
> surprised we don't have any stall horns at all on any gliders...

I'm not suggesting this isn't a good idea, but I do wonder...

Why do airplanes have ANY stall/spins during landing? Typically, they
have full control of their pattern (altitude, entry point), while the
glider accidents most often occur when the pilot can't do the desired
pattern because he returns too low.

Maybe we don't need a stall warning for gliders: perhaps a simple
airspeed alert would do everything that is needed, as long as it was
enabled by the gear being extended. I think it should alert regardless
of the spoiler position, since a low, slow pilot isn't likely to open
the spoilers.

DG sailplanes makes such a device, called the DSI. Take a look here:

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dsi-e.html
DG Flugzeugbau GmbH / DSI - Digital Soaring Indicator

Is anyone using one of these? Maybe we already have what we need, but
not enough people are using it.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>Soaring ought to be about flying the aircraft, not just monitoring the
>>government-mandated distractions. The thing would either be activated during
>>most thermaling, or have such a close tolerance as to give no useful warning
>>to those who would most need it -- and they are expensive. Would you
>>recommend flashing lights on the panel, a speaker tone to compete with the
>>vario, or both? Perhaps you would also like to incorporate a stick-shaker?
>
>
> Who said anything about the gubmint? And what would I want
> with a vario during the landing phase, off-field or not?
> If I've got the gear down and the spoilers out, I'd be
> playing the fool to try using the vario for anything...
>
> Have the vario shut itself off and let the stall warning
> buzzer on...
>
> Expensive? I couldn't comment on that...And are the fatal accidents
> so rare as to make this idea pointless? Perhaps...
>
> As far as spoilers and flaps changing the stall speed, I suppose that's
> glider dependent on how much. And as far as bugs, again I
> don't know how far off the normal stall speed you'd see...
> Maybe it's negligible, maybe not. Dunno...

Some varios, like the Cambridge 302, already have gear warning, spoiler
unlocked on takeoff warning, and airspeed alert built into them. It even
adjusts for G loading. I suspect it would be a simple change to it's
software to have two airspeed alerts, based on gear position:

Gear up (soaring): set it a little below normal thermalling speed (about
46 knot setting works on my glider with my 302).

Gear down (landing): set it a little below the typical pattern speed
(about 50 knots would work on my glider).

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...

> DG sailplanes makes such a device, called the DSI. Take a look here:
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dsi-e.html
> DG Flugzeugbau GmbH / DSI - Digital Soaring Indicator
>
> Is anyone using one of these? Maybe we already have what we need, but
> not enough people are using it.
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Interesting device but maybe a little too much feature bloat.

It wasn't clear to me that different minimum airspeed warnings could be set
for various glider configurations such as, say, 55Kts with the gear down but
42 knots with the gear up. doesn't really matter - I'd settle for just a
differential pressure switch that is set once and interlocked with the gear.

The "Dolly Warning" is interesting. Just place a magnetic reed switch
inside the tail boom where the dolly fits and bolt a strong magnet on the
dolly.

900 Euro is probably cheap compared to the mayhem it is intended to prevent
but I'd bet that an equivalent device could soldered up for a lot less by an
electronics hobbyist.

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>>It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
>>>have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
>>>accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any numbers?
>>
>>
>> I looked up the last ten years of gliders (49 fatalities)
>> and then I looked up a three month window of airplane fatalities
>> from 3/94 to 6/94 (102 fatalities). I got lazy and didn't want
>> to look through more than 100, but I wanted to see final reports, so...
>>
>> Gliders: 21 stalls of 49 fatalities = 43%
>>
>> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 21 of 42 = 50%
>>
>> Airplanes: 9 stalls of 102 fatalities = 9%
>>
>> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 9 of 91 = 10%
>>
>> A bunch of the airplane ones were also night and/or IFR (less than
>> half). But it seemed real clear that more of the glider fatalities
>> could have been stalls. Anyway, I concluded that airplane guys
>> don't stall very much close to the ground...
>>
>> I was also VERY surprised to find a lot of medical problems
>> with airplenes, and I don't think even one fatal glider accident
>> due to a medical condition. This is really surprising...I'll
>> need to look at all 250 fatal glider reports at some point to
>> see if there are ANY medical fatalities...
>>
>> Anyway, yes glider pilots die from stalls as a real big
>> factor. I think it's because they don't have warning devices.
>> Hells bells, just hook 'em to the gear down and spoiler cracked
>> switches, so they're off the rest of the time (thermalling).
>>
>> Or maybe somebody has a better idea. I dunno, I'm just real
>> surprised we don't have any stall horns at all on any gliders...
>
>I'm not suggesting this isn't a good idea, but I do wonder...
>
>Why do airplanes have ANY stall/spins during landing? Typically, they
>have full control of their pattern (altitude, entry point), while the
>glider accidents most often occur when the pilot can't do the desired
>pattern because he returns too low.
>
>Maybe we don't need a stall warning for gliders: perhaps a simple
>airspeed alert would do everything that is needed, as long as it was
>enabled by the gear being extended. I think it should alert regardless
>of the spoiler position, since a low, slow pilot isn't likely to open
>the spoilers.
>
>DG sailplanes makes such a device, called the DSI. Take a look here:
>
>http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dsi-e.html
>DG Flugzeugbau GmbH / DSI - Digital Soaring Indicator
>
>Is anyone using one of these? Maybe we already have what we need, but
>not enough people are using it.

Well, some of the power accidents are just newer pilots that
weren't trained to properly react to the horn. In some
I suspect the horn wasn't even working (I've been surprised by
failed horn a few times).

The airspeed idea is good (better than nothing) but doesn't
tell the AOA at both wingtips, and doesn't seem to account for the
G loading in a tight turn. Also, as another poster pointed out,
the horn detects gusts, which is pretty useful IMHO.

In any case, I'd just love to have a glider with an AOA tab
(each with a different tone) on each wingtip, and teach some spins in it.
I'd also love to see how well it does when thermalling. Maybe
Andreas is right and one can't tell horn vs. vario, but it would be
a kick to try...

Anyway, just another fun idea...now let's cut out this
nonsense and get back to implementing the turbine powered sparrowhawk ;P

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Well, some of the power accidents are just newer pilots that
> weren't trained to properly react to the horn. In some
> I suspect the horn wasn't even working (I've been surprised by
> failed horn a few times).
>
> The airspeed idea is good (better than nothing) but doesn't
> tell the AOA at both wingtips,

This probably won't be useful for landing, since the selected airspeed
should be high enough to make the AOA at the tips irrelevant.

> and doesn't seem to account for the
> G loading in a tight turn.

Take another look: both the DSI and the 302 have accelerometers that let
them account for G loading. Anyway, the stall/spins typically aren't
from tight turns, but shallow ones.

> Also, as another poster pointed out,
> the horn detects gusts, which is pretty useful IMHO.

I think any gusts that affect your landing will be readily apparent as
the glider twitches and bobs in response to them. Certainly they are
noted by the pilot while thermalling.

Maybe it's time to give airspeed alerts in the pattern a chance.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[K.P. Termaat]

Looks to me that having AOA indicators in the IP for both wingtips to
optimize climbing performance and avoid the onset of spin would be great .

Karel, NL


"Mark James Boyd" > schreef in bericht
news:4053a369$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >>>It might be useful to look at small airplane accidents, since they DO
> >>>have stall warning horns. I'm under the impression that stall/spin
> >>>accidents are a big cause of fatal accidents also. Do you have any
numbers?
> >>
> >>
> >> I looked up the last ten years of gliders (49 fatalities)
> >> and then I looked up a three month window of airplane fatalities
> >> from 3/94 to 6/94 (102 fatalities). I got lazy and didn't want
> >> to look through more than 100, but I wanted to see final reports, so...
> >>
> >> Gliders: 21 stalls of 49 fatalities = 43%
> >>
> >> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 21 of 42 = 50%
> >>
> >> Airplanes: 9 stalls of 102 fatalities = 9%
> >>
> >> If you eliminate midairs and disconnected controls, 9 of 91 = 10%
> >>
> >> A bunch of the airplane ones were also night and/or IFR (less than
> >> half). But it seemed real clear that more of the glider fatalities
> >> could have been stalls. Anyway, I concluded that airplane guys
> >> don't stall very much close to the ground...
> >>
> >> I was also VERY surprised to find a lot of medical problems
> >> with airplenes, and I don't think even one fatal glider accident
> >> due to a medical condition. This is really surprising...I'll
> >> need to look at all 250 fatal glider reports at some point to
> >> see if there are ANY medical fatalities...
> >>
> >> Anyway, yes glider pilots die from stalls as a real big
> >> factor. I think it's because they don't have warning devices.
> >> Hells bells, just hook 'em to the gear down and spoiler cracked
> >> switches, so they're off the rest of the time (thermalling).
> >>
> >> Or maybe somebody has a better idea. I dunno, I'm just real
> >> surprised we don't have any stall horns at all on any gliders...
> >
> >I'm not suggesting this isn't a good idea, but I do wonder...
> >
> >Why do airplanes have ANY stall/spins during landing? Typically, they
> >have full control of their pattern (altitude, entry point), while the
> >glider accidents most often occur when the pilot can't do the desired
> >pattern because he returns too low.
> >
> >Maybe we don't need a stall warning for gliders: perhaps a simple
> >airspeed alert would do everything that is needed, as long as it was
> >enabled by the gear being extended. I think it should alert regardless
> >of the spoiler position, since a low, slow pilot isn't likely to open
> >the spoilers.
> >
> >DG sailplanes makes such a device, called the DSI. Take a look here:
> >
> >http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/dsi-e.html
> >DG Flugzeugbau GmbH / DSI - Digital Soaring Indicator
> >
> >Is anyone using one of these? Maybe we already have what we need, but
> >not enough people are using it.
>
> Well, some of the power accidents are just newer pilots that
> weren't trained to properly react to the horn. In some
> I suspect the horn wasn't even working (I've been surprised by
> failed horn a few times).
>
> The airspeed idea is good (better than nothing) but doesn't
> tell the AOA at both wingtips, and doesn't seem to account for the
> G loading in a tight turn. Also, as another poster pointed out,
> the horn detects gusts, which is pretty useful IMHO.
>
> In any case, I'd just love to have a glider with an AOA tab
> (each with a different tone) on each wingtip, and teach some spins in it.
> I'd also love to see how well it does when thermalling. Maybe
> Andreas is right and one can't tell horn vs. vario, but it would be
> a kick to try...
>
> Anyway, just another fun idea...now let's cut out this
> nonsense and get back to implementing the turbine powered sparrowhawk ;P
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Robertmudd1u]

>Gear up (soaring): set it a little below normal thermalling speed (about
>46 knot setting works on my glider with my 302).
>
>Gear down (landing): set it a little below the typical pattern speed
>(about 50 knots would work on my glider).
>

Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.

Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly them
X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.

Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles and a
$100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.

Robert Mudd

[Eric Greenwell]

Robertmudd1u wrote:

>>Gear up (soaring): set it a little below normal thermalling speed (about
>>46 knot setting works on my glider with my 302).
>>
>>Gear down (landing): set it a little below the typical pattern speed
>>(about 50 knots would work on my glider).
>>
>
>
> Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.
>
> Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly them
> X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.

I was trying to keep the discussion simple and focused on the air speed
alert idea. It'd also failin a retractable gear glider if the pilot
forgot to put the gear down.

Fixed gear gliders could use a switch for "landing mode". Perhaps one
switched on by opening the spoilers during the pattern checks that stays
switched on even when the spoilers are closed after the checks would be
better. The pilot would manually reset it after landing, or after using
the spoilers while soaring.
>
> Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles and a
> $100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.

Agreed, but the discussion isn't about being a "real" glider pilot, but
how to help the pilot when his piloting fails. People spinning in are
definitely hurting us. If the airspeed alert idea is useful, it can be
cheaply implemented by pilots using the Cambridge 302 and similar high
end varios. That's got to be good.

Extending the protection (if it is protection) to pilots that won't buy
an expensive vario, or the $1100 DSI from DG, would be the next
challenge. If proven to be of value (and having people using the idea
via 302/DSI route would be one way), I think you'd see it popping up in
cheaper systems. A special unit that did only the airspeed alert for
landing would be a lot cheaper than the DSI. The DSI itself might get a
lot cheaper if these kinds of things began selling, and competitors
appeared.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>
>Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.
>
>Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly them
>X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.
>
>Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles and a
>$100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.
>
>Robert Mudd

I certainly would not use the word "need" with respect to a
glider AOA indicator.

And yes, cheap and simple is important. Perhaps the cheapest idea
is simply the ol' harmonica style Cezzna AOA indicators, one
mounted on each wingtip of a 1-26 (easier to install on a metal wing,
and the 1-26 is a glider with more than it's share of stalls
leading to fatalities).

Then, if added complexity is warranted, a small switch on the
spoilers which deactivates the audio vario when the spoilers are out,
so one can now just barely hear the stall horns.

Ideally, it would be nice to have removable wingtips, so
one could experiment without modifying a whole wing...

Perhaps there are other types that would have this feature
to allow inexpensive experimentation. Then maybe try the electric
AOA tabs too...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Dick Johnson]

SAILPLANE STALL WARNING SYSTEMS - Recent History

Because of concern about sailplane stall accidents, during early 1987
OSTIV announced that they would sponsor a "Competition for Development
of a Special Flight Instrument for Stall Warning of Sailplanes". We of
the Dallas Gliding Association decided that entering that competition
was certainly a worthwhile project. The offered prize for 1st place
was 2,550 DM, and 1,000 DM for 2nd place. Those prizes were awarded
after flight-testing judging and during the 1989 OSTIV Congress at
Weiner Neustadt in Austria.
Over a 2-year period we studied various candidate configurations, and
performed developmental flight-testing with 5 or 6 different
experimental stall warning systems. While most of the flight-testing
was performed with my Ventus A, several other sailplanes ranging from
a Schweizer 1-26 to a Nimbus 3 were included. Flight testing included
flying into moderate rain showers, and flying with many natural bugs
along the wing leading edges.
We judged our best overall stall-warning configuration to be a small
floating vane mounted well aft on the top surface of the wing, and
entered that configuration into the 1998 OSTIV Competition fly-offs at
Weiner Neustadt. The Polish entry was judged to be the winner there,
but our configuration placed 2nd. The weakness in our design was that
its external mounting was subject to damage during club use.
The Polish design used the differential pressure measured between the
fuselage nose pitot tube and a small flush orifice located on the
bottom of the nose several inches aft of the pitot. It is essentially
an angle-of-attack indicator, and I believe that it is still marketed
today.
Although its external mounting makes it subject to handling damage,
the DGA design performs well in my opinion, even in rain and with bugs
and various flap settings. I have used it on my sailplanes
continuously since its development, and feel my flying is safer for
that. Its design is shown in the 7/90 issue of Soaring, and I believe
it was also published Sailplane & Gliding about that time.
Dick Johnson

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4054b43e$1@darkstar...
> Robertmudd1u > wrote:
> >
> >Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.
> >
> >Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly
them
> >X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.
> >
> >Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles
and a
> >$100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting
us.
> >
> >Robert Mudd
>
> I certainly would not use the word "need" with respect to a
> glider AOA indicator.
>
> And yes, cheap and simple is important. Perhaps the cheapest idea
> is simply the ol' harmonica style Cezzna AOA indicators, one
> mounted on each wingtip of a 1-26 (easier to install on a metal wing,
> and the 1-26 is a glider with more than it's share of stalls
> leading to fatalities).
>
> Then, if added complexity is warranted, a small switch on the
> spoilers which deactivates the audio vario when the spoilers are out,
> so one can now just barely hear the stall horns.
>
> Ideally, it would be nice to have removable wingtips, so
> one could experiment without modifying a whole wing...
>
> Perhaps there are other types that would have this feature
> to allow inexpensive experimentation. Then maybe try the electric
> AOA tabs too...
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of the
canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see. Fly once with
a grease pencil to mark the inside of the canopy at the string positions for
best L/D, minimum sink, and stall. By using a string on each side of the
canopy, the error introduced by inadvertent yaw is obvious and can be
eliminated with rudder.

The string position for best L/D, min sink, and stall will always be the
same whether the glider is ballasted, empty or in a steep turn - although
the airspeeds will be very different.

The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so the
bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall
warning.

Bill Daniels

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi Robert,

Read the story at http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm and you may have second
thoughts.

Karel, NL

"Robertmudd1u" > schreef in bericht
...
> >Gear up (soaring): set it a little below normal thermalling speed (about
> >46 knot setting works on my glider with my 302).
> >
> >Gear down (landing): set it a little below the typical pattern speed
> >(about 50 knots would work on my glider).
> >
>
> Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.
>
> Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly
them
> X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.
>
> Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles
and a
> $100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.
>
> Robert Mudd

[Uri Saovray]

Speaking of simple warning devices:
How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers
during tow)?
A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part.
What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas?
Uri

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<4054b43e$1@darkstar>...
> Robertmudd1u > wrote:
> >
> >Some may think this a cheap shot, but what the heck.
> >
> >Believe it or not some pilots fly gliders with fixed gear. They even fly them
> >X-C and make land outs. They even stall/spin them.
> >
> >Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles and a
> >$100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.
> >
> >Robert Mudd
>
> I certainly would not use the word "need" with respect to a
> glider AOA indicator.
>
> And yes, cheap and simple is important. Perhaps the cheapest idea
> is simply the ol' harmonica style Cezzna AOA indicators, one
> mounted on each wingtip of a 1-26 (easier to install on a metal wing,
> and the 1-26 is a glider with more than it's share of stalls
> leading to fatalities).
>
> Then, if added complexity is warranted, a small switch on the
> spoilers which deactivates the audio vario when the spoilers are out,
> so one can now just barely hear the stall horns.
>
> Ideally, it would be nice to have removable wingtips, so
> one could experiment without modifying a whole wing...
>
> Perhaps there are other types that would have this feature
> to allow inexpensive experimentation. Then maybe try the electric
> AOA tabs too...

[Robertmudd1u]

>Hi Robert,
>
>Read the story at http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm and you may have second
>thoughts.
>
>Karel, NL
>

Sorry Karel, I am missing your point. I did not say such systems were not a
good idea just that they need to be designed for fixed gear glider too, and not
be expensive. On my retractable gear glider I do have a warning horn for
airbrake and landing gear.

The information in your link is interesting, Ia m sure some will find the
schematic valuable. I sure saved it.

Robert Mudd

[Robertmudd1u]

>Speaking of simple warning devices:
>How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
>airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged

David Noyes had such a system on his Ventus CM. There was a micro switch
mounted so that the trigger blade was moved by the oval Tost ring as it was
inserted into the tow hook.

Robert Mudd

[Robertmudd1u]

>We judged our best overall stall-warning configuration to be a small
>floating vane mounted well aft on the top surface of the wing,

Beechcraft used this system on the early models of the Bonanza.

Robert Mudd

[cernauta]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote:

>Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of the
>canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see.

>The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so the
>bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall
>warning.

That must be true only for unflapped gliders, or it's valid only for
one specific flap setting in a flapped glider. Or you have to make
different coloured markings for each and every flap setting.

Aldo Cernezzi

[Mark James Boyd]

Wow, there have been some absolutely excellent posts on this
thread. Thank you to all those who contributed...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

"cernauta" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> >Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of
the
> >canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see.
>
> >The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so
the
> >bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall
> >warning.
>
> That must be true only for unflapped gliders, or it's valid only for
> one specific flap setting in a flapped glider. Or you have to make
> different coloured markings for each and every flap setting.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi

You're right about flaps making a difference in the calibration. I've only
tried this on two flapped gliders and one without flaps. However, It seemed
to work pretty well in all cases. I actually didn't see too much difference
in the string indications at different flap settings.

The flap issue is partly moot since the flap settings are related to
airspeed bands. Stall concerns would likely arise only with the flaps in
their most positive two settings, landing or slow thermalling. The
near-stall indication is very obvious.

Bill Daniels

[Jack]

On 3/14/04 6:54 AM, in article ,
"Robertmudd1u" > wrote:

> Too many people in this sport think you need ALL the bells and whistles and a
> $100,000+ glider to be a "real" glider pilot. That attitude is hurting us.

Right on! And exactly why we get so many arrogant and ultimately ignorant
remarks concerning the so-called inadequacies of the PW-5. Clearly, too many
people don't understand the concept of competition. It is not about what you
show up with on the trailer, but about what you can do with it in the air.
Neither the choice of the PW-5 nor the parameters established for the WC
Glider selection process are the source of the problem.

The "Mine is bigger than yours," syndrome will ruin the World Class just as
it has ruined other forms of vehicle-based competition. Classes which were
originally established to facilitate development of skill and commitment to
a sport at reasonable cost are falling prey to the "too much money and not
enough character" syndrome on every side. The bitter and unreasoning
criticisms of the PW-5 on this forum are clear evidence of the kind of
distorted personalities which are behind this unfortunate phenomenon.

People who are real competitors are competitive on skateboards, lawnmowers,
1-26s, or jet fighters, and using the excuse that the equipment is not up to
your exalted standards is, on its face, little more than a childish excuse
for personal inadequacy.


Jack

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi again Robert.
Read your thread not good enough I guess. Sorry for that.
Nice to understand that you are using yourself an airbrake/gear warning
system.
Indeed a warning system for unlocked or extended airbrakes on fixed gear
gliders would do a good job too.

Karel, NL


"Robertmudd1u" > schreef in bericht
...
> >Hi Robert,
> >
> >Read the story at http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm and you may have
second
> >thoughts.
> >
> >Karel, NL
> >
>
> Sorry Karel, I am missing your point. I did not say such systems were not
a
> good idea just that they need to be designed for fixed gear glider too,
and not
> be expensive. On my retractable gear glider I do have a warning horn for
> airbrake and landing gear.
>
> The information in your link is interesting, Ia m sure some will find the
> schematic valuable. I sure saved it.
>
> Robert Mudd

[Jon Meyer]

I think you are missing the point that most people
have made about the PW5, those that aren't ignorant
anyway. The point is that it does not perform well
enough to justify the price tag. I cannot understand
the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+
for a sailplane with the performance only slightly
better than a K6e when they could get a second hand
LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money! I would have
thought that a one-type class based on an existing
design (which could be very cheaply put back into production)
would make far more sense. After all, some of us can't
even afford a brand new PW5, but can afford an old
ratty ASW20 or LS4.
This is not about elitism in terms of money, its about
common sense and value for money. The PW5 has an abundance
of neither.
LS4 for the world class!

[Pete Zeugma]

At 22:18 14 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
>Speaking of simple warning devices:
>How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated
>when the
>airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e.
>open spoilers
>during tow)?
>A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer
>part.
>What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How?
>

>Other ideas?


how about the last 'B' in CB-SIFT-CB i've always found
it to be a no-brainer personally, and its completely
free! Usually accompanied by the guy who attaches the
towrope/cable saying that phrase 'brakes closed and
locked?'

[Ben Flewett]

Jack,

You are right. I take back everything I have said
about the PW5.

Now, if you will excuse me... Me and my distorted
personality need to get back to writing letters to
Schumacher and Barrichello informing them that their
'Mine is bigger than yours' attitude is ruining Formula
One. Whilst I am at it, I might inform John Coutts
(top ranked glider pilot in the World) that he has
'too much money and not enough character'.

Are you honestly suggesting that people should WANT
to sell their beautiful German sailplanes and buy PW5s?

Have you ever flown a glider?

Ben.


>Right on! And exactly why we get so many arrogant and
>ultimately ignorant
>remarks concerning the so-called inadequacies of the
>PW-5. Clearly, too many
>people don't understand the concept of competition.
>It is not about what you
>show up with on the trailer, but about what you can
>do with it in the air.
>Neither the choice of the PW-5 nor the parameters established
>for the WC
>Glider selection process are the source of the problem.
>
>The 'Mine is bigger than yours,' syndrome will ruin
>the World Class just as
>it has ruined other forms of vehicle-based competition.
>Classes which were
>originally established to facilitate development of
>skill and commitment to
>a sport at reasonable cost are falling prey to the
>'too much money and not
>enough character' syndrome on every side. The bitter
>and unreasoning
>criticisms of the PW-5 on this forum are clear evidence
>of the kind of
>distorted personalities which are behind this unfortunate
>phenomenon.
>
>People who are real competitors are competitive on
>skateboards, lawnmowers,
>1-26s, or jet fighters, and using the excuse that the
>equipment is not up to
>your exalted standards is, on its face, little more
>than a childish excuse
>for personal inadequacy.
>
>
>Jack
>
>

[cernauta]

Jon Meyer > wrote:

> I cannot understand
>the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+
>for a sailplane with the performance only slightly
>better than a K6e when they could get a second hand
>LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money!

While I agree that LS4 for the world class might have been the best
solution (provided production plans were made available to any builder
anywhere in the world), there are many countries mostly outside Europe
where good, used gliders are not available today, and importing from
Europe is not economical because of huge taxes and duties.

The PW5 isn't an appealing glider, but it's today the only
certificated glider you can build anywhere in the world. We must think
world-wise if we want to create an opportunity for development of the
sport.

Aldo Cernezzi

[John]

Bill,

Are you still using the AOA indicators made from yaw strings? Which
glider type is it mounted on?

I assume these strings would be forward, so you visualize them at the
same time you see the normal yaw string. Is that correct?

John

[Bill Daniels]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
> Bill,
>
> Are you still using the AOA indicators made from yaw strings? Which
> glider type is it mounted on?

I have tended to use them with new gliders to calibrate my seat of the pants
feel near a stall. Once my senses are atuned to the glider the strings are
no longer neccessary. I have tried them on a Lark IS28, Blanik L-23 and a
Nimbus 2C. The string indications were simular on all.
>
> I assume these strings would be forward, so you visualize them at the
> same time you see the normal yaw string. Is that correct?
>
The strings need to be as far forward as possible to get away from the
near-field flow over the wing. If I recall my Aerodynamics 101, the perfect
place for an AOA sensor would be about 10 wing chord lengths ahead of the LE
on a nose boom. The best practical position is near the forward end of the
canopy side frames. This happens to put them in the pilots field of view.

The 3D flow over the glider's nose seems to amplify the response of the
strings to changes in AOA so don't expect the string angles to represent the
actual AOA. While the absolute accuracy is terrible, the indications are
very repeatable and once calibrated to the three critical AOA's, they do
give useful data.

The biggest problem is that they are highly sensitive to yaw angles but if
both strings are giving the same indication, the yaw error is cancelled out.
Another nuisance issue is that the strings tend to get sucked under the
canopy frame as it is being closed trapping the strings.

Bill Daniels

[Uri Saovray]

Sure, but that doesn't take care of INADVERTENT opening of the
spoilers. Examples: weak geometric lock + some turbulence;
Dual-command + some confusion in the other seat; You can probably
think of more examples...
Uri

Pete Zeugma > wrote in message >...
> At 22:18 14 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
> >Speaking of simple warning devices:
> >How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated
> >when the
> >airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e.
> >open spoilers
> >during tow)?
> >A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer
> >part.
> >What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How?
> >
>
> >Other ideas?
>
>
> how about the last 'B' in CB-SIFT-CB i've always found
> it to be a no-brainer personally, and its completely
> free! Usually accompanied by the guy who attaches the
> towrope/cable saying that phrase 'brakes closed and
> locked?'

[Dick Johnson]

I forgot to mention that the stall warning unit, set normally to about
10% stall margin. appears to be of help while thermalling also. Going
too slow and/or pulling too many "G" will increase drag, besides being
dangerous. A prompt easing of the stick back-pressure quickly silences
the small piezo horn's warning signal.
Dick Johnson

[Ian Johnston]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:46:48 UTC, cernauta
> wrote:

: We must think
: world-wise if we want to create an opportunity for development of the
: sport.

Why?

Ian
--

[Tony Verhulst]

> Soaring ought to be about flying the aircraft, not just monitoring the
> government-mandated distractions. The thing would either be activated during
> most thermaling,

If the problem you're solving is landing accidents, simply disable the
device while the gear is up. If you have fixed gear.....

or have such a close tolerance as to give no useful warning
> to those who would most need it

This is a good point. The Skylane that I own a small piece of has a horn
that sounds about 10 kts before the actual stall - and as such, is
pretty useless, IMHO. This is pretty typical for most power planes and
during a normal landing you expect it to go off. The problem with a
close tolerance is false alarms. If the alarm goes off too often due to
gusts, or what ever, a pilot will tend to ignore it when it's really
trying to tell you something.

Dick Johnson feels that a properly designed stall warning works in
gliders. He knows more than I. Still, I can't help but think of all the
power pilots that have landed gear up while the gear warning was
blaring. They were (typically) totally distracted during a high pressure
situation and either did not hear it or failed to grasp its significance.

Tony V.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 07:12:18 GMT, Jack > wrote:

>Right on! And exactly why we get so many arrogant and ultimately ignorant
>remarks concerning the so-called inadequacies of the PW-5. Clearly, too many
>people don't understand the concept of competition.

Gliding is not about competition.
Gliding is about having fun.

As others have pointed out before, I don't have fun to spent my
hard-earned money on a Ka-6 performing glider instead of a beautiful
ASW-20.

Not to mention that I don't have fun to fly such a thing after I'm
used to the performance of a 40+ L/D.




Bye
Andreas

[Stewart Kissel]

Well not so sure Jack does not have a point, Ben.
In your post dated 10 March at 10:12-

In 5 sentences you managed to,
1.) Use 'I' six times
2.) Mention your latest ship twice
3.) Mention your first ship once
4.) Use 'overprice rubbish' to describe other's aircraft

So maybe that stereotype of the 'gl***hole' has some
validity.





At 12:24 15 March 2004, Ben Flewett wrote:
>Jack,
>
>You are right. I take back everything I have said
>about the PW5.
>SNIP
>Are you honestly suggesting that people should WANT
>to sell their beautiful German sailplanes and buy PW5s?
>
>Have you ever flown a glider?
>
>Ben.
>

[Ben Flewett]

Stewart,

You must be more bored than me.

In response to the four points you raise below:

1) So what?
2) So what?
3) So what?
4) Someone made a similarly derogatory remark about
my sailplane type a few postings ago - I was not offended
as they are entitled to their opinion.

The fact remains - you can't dictate to people what
they _should_ want. Otherwise, the World Class would
be a roaring success and I would be wrong. But (sadly)
it's not and I'm not.

Regards,

Ben.


At 16:54 15 March 2004, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>Well not so sure Jack does not have a point, Ben.
>In your post dated 10 March at 10:12-
>
>In 5 sentences you managed to,
>1.) Use 'I' six times
>2.) Mention your latest ship twice
>3.) Mention your first ship once
>4.) Use 'overprice rubbish' to describe other's aircraft
>
>So maybe that stereotype of the 'gl***hole' has some
>validity.
>
>
>
>
>
>At 12:24 15 March 2004, Ben Flewett wrote:
>>Jack,
>>
>>You are right. I take back everything I have said
>>about the PW5.
>>SNIP
>>Are you honestly suggesting that people should WANT
>>to sell their beautiful German sailplanes and buy PW5s?
>>
>>Have you ever flown a glider?
>>
>>Ben.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[Liam Finley]

If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they
so touchy and defensive?

I think it's pretty obvious that they are in denial. They invested in
these machines thinking that the world class would take off, and
instead it flopped, and they are stuck with these expensive fiberglass
lawn ornanments, and that reality is just too disturbing for them to
come to terms with. So they attack the messengers instead.

If PW-5'ers did more flying and less whining perhaps they could
convince us otherwise.

Jon Meyer > wrote in message >...
> I think you are missing the point that most people
> have made about the PW5, those that aren't ignorant
> anyway. The point is that it does not perform well
> enough to justify the price tag. I cannot understand
> the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+
> for a sailplane with the performance only slightly
> better than a K6e when they could get a second hand
> LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money! I would have
> thought that a one-type class based on an existing
> design (which could be very cheaply put back into production)
> would make far more sense. After all, some of us can't
> even afford a brand new PW5, but can afford an old
> ratty ASW20 or LS4.
> This is not about elitism in terms of money, its about
> common sense and value for money. The PW5 has an abundance
> of neither.
> LS4 for the world class!

[Bruce Greeff]

I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open the airbrakes by moving my
left arm back.

There is enough friction between my arm and the actuator to overcome the
geometric lock.

Quite exciting when you do that on your first single seater launch in a Cirrus
on a winch...

Uri Saovray wrote:
> Sure, but that doesn't take care of INADVERTENT opening of the
> spoilers. Examples: weak geometric lock + some turbulence;
> Dual-command + some confusion in the other seat; You can probably
> think of more examples...
> Uri
>
> Pete Zeugma > wrote in message >...
>
>>At 22:18 14 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
>>
>>>Speaking of simple warning devices:
>>>How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated
>>>when the
>>>airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e.
>>>open spoilers
>>>during tow)?
>>>A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer
>>>part.
>>>What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Other ideas?
>>
>>
>>how about the last 'B' in CB-SIFT-CB i've always found
>>it to be a no-brainer personally, and its completely
>>free! Usually accompanied by the guy who attaches the
>>towrope/cable saying that phrase 'brakes closed and
>>locked?'

[G.Kurek]

And you think that you can find a legitimate company that will make
LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down payment?!!

[Stewart Kissel]

At 19:00 15 March 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
Liam-

A few years ago I was shopping for a glider. Peak
Soaring in Colorado was going full blast at the time
and pushing PW5's hard. I went and test flew one.


The price and performance did not make sense for me,
so I looked elsewhere. Curiously the guy who ran Peak
Soaring and was pushing PW's was one of the reasons
I did not investigate them further, like you and Ben
he was a chest-beater. Check some of the old flame
wars from him. Hell most of what you two say I agree
with-but the tone I can live without. It serves no
purpose IMHO.

I suppose the PW group will probably learn from the
1-26ers and take their efforts to their own web site
to avoid the abuse. That is to bad because the 1-26er's
are a great bunch of guys.




>If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim
>to be, why are they
>so touchy and defensive?
>
SNIP.
>
>If PW-5'ers did more flying and less whining perhaps
>they could
>convince us otherwise.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Uri Saovray wrote:
> Speaking of simple warning devices:
> How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
> airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers
> during tow)?
> A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part.
> What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas?
> Uri

This would be an easy addition to the typical gear warning system, with
the new switch simply over-riding the gear switch. Fixed gear gliders
would need to add a spoiler switch and warning buzzer.

Pilots concerned about warning proliferation could consider using a
voice chip to speak "Spoilers" and "Gear" for the two alerts, instead of
a buzzer. Voice chips are cheap and simple to use these days.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> "cernauta" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of
>
> the
>
>>>canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see.
>>
>>>The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so
>
> the
>
>>>bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall
>>>warning.
>>
>>That must be true only for unflapped gliders, or it's valid only for
>>one specific flap setting in a flapped glider. Or you have to make
>>different coloured markings for each and every flap setting.
>>
>>Aldo Cernezzi
>
>
> You're right about flaps making a difference in the calibration. I've only
> tried this on two flapped gliders and one without flaps. However, It seemed
> to work pretty well in all cases. I actually didn't see too much difference
> in the string indications at different flap settings.
>
> The flap issue is partly moot since the flap settings are related to
> airspeed bands. Stall concerns would likely arise only with the flaps in
> their most positive two settings, landing or slow thermalling. The
> near-stall indication is very obvious.

Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip
that stalls, not the root?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Jon Meyer wrote:

> I think you are missing the point that most people
> have made about the PW5, those that aren't ignorant
> anyway. The point is that it does not perform well
> enough to justify the price tag. I cannot understand
> the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+
> for a sailplane with the performance only slightly
> better than a K6e when they could get a second hand
> LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money! I would have
> thought that a one-type class based on an existing
> design (which could be very cheaply put back into production)
> would make far more sense. After all, some of us can't
> even afford a brand new PW5, but can afford an old
> ratty ASW20 or LS4.
> This is not about elitism in terms of money, its about
> common sense and value for money. The PW5 has an abundance
> of neither.
> LS4 for the world class!

Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition class?
That is what people seem to be proposing. This class would be nearly
identical to the current Standard Class, but with a little less
performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a new "LS4" when they
could buy a better performing used Discus for the same or less money,
just to compete in this class?

I think proposing more of what we already have will not bring new pilots
or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide them up between the
Standard Class and "LS4 Standard Class". I think the current World class
is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately, not in
the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word Class are good,
and the specifications appropriate to those goals.

People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a used PW5. Many pilots
that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used LS4 or ASW 20, and
buy them because they can afford it. This is good for those people, and
good for the sport.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Liam Finley wrote:

> If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they
> so touchy and defensive?
>
> I think it's pretty obvious that they are in denial. They invested in
> these machines thinking that the world class would take off, and
> instead it flopped, and they are stuck with these expensive fiberglass
> lawn ornanments, and that reality is just too disturbing for them to
> come to terms with. So they attack the messengers instead.

It is a mistake to imagine the postings here come from PW5 owners in
general. Ironically, some (most?) of the defense of the class and glider
comes from pilots that don't even fly them, such as myself (I fly an 18
m motorglider).

I'm sure most of the PW5 owners are elsewhere, enjoying discussing the
gliders and World Class with people that believe in it. They aren't
here, because they've learned that it is a fool's errand to attempt
discussions with people that call their glider "rubbish". If people
called your glider that, you'd probably be a bit touchy, too. It makes
me irritable, and I don't even own one.

If you want to know what PW5 owners are doing, you'll have to go to
where they are.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...


Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip
> that stalls, not the root?
>

Yep, and the indication is still useful. No doubt the AOA measured near the
centerline is lower than the actual AOA of the inside wingtip. (Your point,
Eric.)

But, the AOA indication you do get is significantly greater than minimum
sink so that you would take it as a stall warning, or at least an indication
that lowering the nose would result in better performance.

YMMV, but my experience with them has been that the 10cm long strings are
25mm or so higher at stall than at min sink while the difference between
best L/D and min sink is only 5 - 10mm. The strings angle upward and wiggle
a lot near stall.

All I can say is try it. If it doesn't do anything for you, rip 'em off.
It's a pretty cheap experiment.

Bill Daniels

[Jon Meyer]

At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
>And you think that you can find a legitimate company
>that will make
>LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down
>payment?!!
>
You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you
wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand
one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price).
If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and
have a new one, though I don't understand why you would.
Composite gliders in general have a much longer life
in terms of hours and launches than you would ever
need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled
in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself).
My point is that designing a new glider for the world
class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy
behind the concept. If you want proof then just look
at the number of people that bother buying them/entering
the world class.
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.
Just my opinion.

[Jon Meyer]

>Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition
>class?
>That is what people seem to be proposing. This class
>would be nearly
>identical to the current Standard Class, but with a
>little less
>performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a
>new 'LS4' when they
>could buy a better performing used Discus for the same
>or less money,
>just to compete in this class?


Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.
The aim was to have a one-design class. This would
enable us to compete in the olympics, and would ensure
a level playing field for all competitors regardless
of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
of the world class.
Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider, it could be an ASW22BWL for
all I care as long as they were cheap and plentiful
(I can dream....).
The only requirements are that the design should be
plentiful (the PW5 is not), cheap (2nd Hand LS4's are),
and of the best performance possible that satisfy these
criteria.
The LS4 is ideal, as would many existing designs have
been.

>
>I think proposing more of what we already have will
>not bring new pilots
>or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide
>them up between the
>Standard Class and 'LS4 Standard Class'. I think the
>current World class
>is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately,
>not in
>the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word
>Class are good,
>and the specifications appropriate to those goals.
>
>People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a
>used PW5. Many pilots
>that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used
>LS4 or ASW 20, and
>buy them because they can afford it. This is good for
>those people, and
>good for the sport.
>
>--
>-----
>change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Jon Meyer wrote:
> I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
> glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
> the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
> an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
> more succesful.

If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an
LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4
was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using
your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It
costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy
one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for
less money I can get a used LS4?".

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Jon Meyer wrote:

> Are you therefore saying that the world class must
> have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
> as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?

No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

> I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
> to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
> very good.

Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).

> The aim was to have a one-design class.

A big part of this was to achieve "cheap".

>This would
> enable us to compete in the olympics,

This was truly a minor side issue.

and would ensure
> a level playing field for all competitors regardless
> of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
> standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
> not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
> one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
> of the world class.
> Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
> for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
> for a world class glider,

If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly.
These are expensive additions. The glider manufacturers were asked what
must be done to make a glider cheaply, and these things were on their
list. They add far more cost than performance, and make it more
complicated to fly. Simple to fly was also a goal. The people that came
up with the specifications didn't just make this stuff up.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Liam Finley]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> I suppose the PW group will probably learn from the
> 1-26ers and take their efforts to their own web site
> to avoid the abuse. That is to bad because the 1-26er's
> are a great bunch of guys.
>

Indeed, the PWer's could learn alot from the 1-26er's. The 1-26er's
fly alot more, and spend less time feeling sorry for themselves. I
can respect that.

[Chris OCallaghan]

I'm just skimming these World Class angst threads, but perhaps someone
could enlighten me... When the competition was proposed back in the
early 90s, why didn't one of the major manufactures offer up a
standard class design for the competition? I know the answer, but
perhaps there are other answers I don't know.

Point is, Rolladen and Schempp and Glasser-Dirks and Schleicher
weren't interested, so the whining about new PeeWees versus used LS-4s
is not even academic. It's just plain silly. Clearly, none of the
major manufacturers was interested in having one of their designs
designated the World Class Glider.

Besides, you can buy a used LS-4 and compete in the club class. So why
even discuss the Peanut class? It is what it is. Don't like Peanuts?
Buy and LS-4 and race elsewhere...

[Kirk Stant]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message >...

> All I can say is try it. If it doesn't do anything for you, rip 'em off.
> It's a pretty cheap experiment.
>
> Bill Daniels


A few years ago I tried the same thing on an LS4. It worked, but was
so sensitive to yaw that the readings were not very useful.

I still wish I could have an audio AOA tone with the gear down (and
matched to the flap setting) that would indicate whether I was fast,
on-speed, slow, or REALLY SLOW (just like the good old F-4). Just
having a stall indication is unfortunately only giving the pilot some
of the information he really needs. And having an accurate audio tone
would allow the pilot to keep a lot more attention outside the cockpit
during the landing pattern (which is kinda nice).

It's really AOA that we fly when slow anyway, using airspeed as an
approximation...

Nice thing about AOA instead of airspeed is that it automatically
compensates for weight, so landing back immediatly after takeoff full
of water (rope break, aborted winch launch) would be a lot safer.

With the gear up, no audio but the AOA for min sink (regardless of
ballast and bank angle and adjusted for flap position), L/D max, and
best acceleration/min drag (when pushing out of a thermal) could be
shown with individual LEDs or a simple edge indicator, to give the
pilot an idea how he is optimizing his flying.

How about it, some smart person? I guarantee, once you fly AOA, you'll
never go back to chasing the ASI!

Kirk

[G.Kurek]

Jon Meyer > wrote in message >...
> At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
> >And you think that you can find a legitimate company
> >that will make
> >LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down
> >payment?!!
> >
> You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you
> wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand
> one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price).
> If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and
> have a new one, though I don't understand why you would.
> Composite gliders in general have a much longer life
> in terms of hours and launches than you would ever
> need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled
> in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself).
> My point is that designing a new glider for the world
> class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy
> behind the concept. If you want proof then just look
> at the number of people that bother buying them/entering
> the world class.
> I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
> glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
> the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
> an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
> more succesful.
> Just my opinion.


First of all, Poland from the capital letter. On the rest I could say
that I agree in almost 100%, if we would want to name a new glider to
be world class it should be a glider that is in the production and
relatively cheap. Someone mentioned that there is possibility of ls4
being produced in Slovakia. Fine but I'm almost sure that these
gliders will go for no less than $60,000 (equipped) just like
Glasflugels from Czech Rep. - that's the catch... In that price range
we, again, would be able to match a better glider. Gliding should be
more economical than flying Cezznaz and in majority of the clubs
already isn't, otherwise we'll share the future of hippies -
extinction.

[G.Kurek]

(Liam Finley) wrote in message >...
> If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they
> so touchy and defensive?
>
> I think it's pretty obvious that they are in denial. They invested in
> these machines thinking that the world class would take off, and
> instead it flopped, and they are stuck with these expensive fiberglass
> lawn ornanments, and that reality is just too disturbing for them to
> come to terms with. So they attack the messengers instead.
>
> If PW-5'ers did more flying and less whining perhaps they could
> convince us otherwise.

I don't own a Pw-5 in fact I was looking to buy an ASW-20 or Jantar
Std.3, anyhow believe me most of the Pw-5 pilots I know would not even
talk to you, not to mention "proving" you anything.

[Uri Saovray]

So if we agree this is a good idea, my main question is the design of
the tow sensor:
1) It must be robust
2) It must not interfere with the hook mechanism (open spoilers AND
can't release???)
3) If it is magnetic - will it interfere with the compass? Does
anybody care?
4) A Large magnet at the end of the tow rope - will it survive the
fall to the ground (either on winch or from the tug
Ideas?

Uri
Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Uri Saovray wrote:
> > Speaking of simple warning devices:
> > How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
> > airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers
> > during tow)?
> > A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part.
> > What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas?
> > Uri
>
> This would be an easy addition to the typical gear warning system, with
> the new switch simply over-riding the gear switch. Fixed gear gliders
> would need to add a spoiler switch and warning buzzer.
>
> Pilots concerned about warning proliferation could consider using a
> voice chip to speak "Spoilers" and "Gear" for the two alerts, instead of
> a buzzer. Voice chips are cheap and simple to use these days.

[Jim Vincent]

> What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas

Install a strain gauge internal to the fuselage right up against the hook
mount. Get Peter Masak to design a simple circuit that trips an electronic
relay when the strain exceeds a certain amount. Knowing Peter, it should take
him less than an hour.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Jack]

On 3/15/04 10:16 AM, in article ,
"Andreas Maurer" > wrote:

> Gliding is about having fun.

> ...I don't have fun to fly such a thing after I'm
> used to the performance of a 40+ L/D.

Good for you. I'm sure we have no argument on that score.


Jack

[Pete Zeugma]

At 15:00 15 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
>Sure, but that doesn't take care of INADVERTENT opening
>of the
>spoilers.

So you only check your brakes the once?

Now I dont know about you, but my general visual visual
sweep includes sideways glances down the wings, and
the usual noise that happens when airbrakes pop open
will make me look along the wing. During a launch,
my hand is resting on the airbrake lever too.


>Examples: weak geometric lock + some turbulence;

Then the problem there is to fix your glider and not
fly a u/s glider. I've never had airbrakes pop open,
even in rotor. Even the club gliders I fly have a considerable
amount of force to unlock the airbrakes, but then they
are well maintained.

>Dual-command + some confusion in the other seat; You
>can probably think of more examples...

Actually, my train of thought is just to use good airmanship,
which is free and widely available to everyone, if
they can be bothered!

[Pete Zeugma]

At 19:12 15 March 2004, Bruce Greeff wrote:
>I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open
>the airbrakes by moving my
>left arm back.

sure you're not over the max loading of it to then?
ever thought of checking it more often since you know
that you can open it so easily, or even having the
overlock adjusted a bit tighter than your fit!

[Jack]

On 3/15/04 6:15 AM, in article ,
"Ben Flewett" > wrote:

> ...[Schumacher's and Barrichello's] 'Mine is bigger than yours' attitude
> is ruining Formula One [and] John Coutts' (top ranked glider pilot in the
World)...has 'too much money and not enough character'.

As might easily have been anticipated, you have taken the egoist's approach
to my remarks concerning unwarranted criticisms of the PW-5 and of the World
Class concept. A F1 Ferrari is as unsuited to the Baja off-road race as an
ASW 27b is to the World Class. It would be irrational to think otherwise,
no?

If one chooses not to fly a PW-5 because the level of competition of which
one is capable requires a mount far more esoteric, then by all means choose
the more suitable ship. But that hardly justifies the near hatred expressed
here towards the PW-5. The PW-5 has its place. The fact that it has not been
universally adopted says more, I believe, about the psychology of the
sailplane enthusiast than it does about the capabilities of the aircraft.


> Are you honestly suggesting that people should WANT
> to sell their beautiful German sailplanes and buy PW5s?

I'm suggesting (and I wonder why you are not) that I couldn't care less what
aircraft someone chooses to fly, but only about how well they fly it, and
ultimately what I might learn from them (and about them) in the process.


> Have you ever flown a glider?

Certainly, though not well enough and not often enough -- do you suppose
that is the glider's fault?



Jack

[John Giddy]

Bruce,
Are you referring to a Standard Cirrus or the Open version ? If it is
a Standard, the force to open the airbrakes from locked position
should be set at about 20 Kg (44 lb force). With this unlock
requirement, I don't think just rubbing your arm along the lever would
unlock the brakes.
Cheers, John G. (Std Cirrus #672)

"Bruce Greeff" > wrote in message
...
> I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open the airbrakes by
moving my
> left arm back.
>
> There is enough friction between my arm and the actuator to overcome
the
> geometric lock.
>
> Quite exciting when you do that on your first single seater launch
in a Cirrus
> on a winch...
>
> Uri Saovray wrote:
> > Sure, but that doesn't take care of INADVERTENT opening of the
> > spoilers. Examples: weak geometric lock + some turbulence;
> > Dual-command + some confusion in the other seat; You can probably
> > think of more examples...
> > Uri
> >
> > Pete Zeugma > wrote in
message >...
> >
> >>At 22:18 14 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
> >>
> >>>Speaking of simple warning devices:
> >>>How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated
> >>>when the
> >>>airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e.
> >>>open spoilers
> >>>during tow)?
> >>>A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer
> >>>part.
> >>>What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Other ideas?
> >>
> >>
> >>how about the last 'B' in CB-SIFT-CB i've always found
> >>it to be a no-brainer personally, and its completely
> >>free! Usually accompanied by the guy who attaches the
> >>towrope/cable saying that phrase 'brakes closed and
> >>locked?'

[Dave Martin]

At 07:30 16 March 2004, Pete Zeugma wrote:

>Actually, my train of thought is just to use good airmanship,
>which is free and widely available to everyone, if
>they can be bothered!

What a simple and thought provoking statement. I agree

We now seem to be advocating warnings and buzzers for
every eventuality. This is a list of the sounds a pilot
is expected to cope with if everyones idea are translated
into reality, it may not be complete..........

Under carriage
Flaps
Stall alert (2 one for each wing tip)
Tail dolly
Low battery
Canopy
Main Pin
G Meter
Spoiler alert
Aircraft Proximity alarm (only good if everyone has
one fitted)

Add a few more from the motor trade

Tyre pressure alert
Brake pad wear alert

Add to this one essential noise

Vario

And a few helpful ones

Radio
GPS alerts
Turn point alerts
Approaching airspace alerts on nav aides

There could be a competition for the pilot who could
play the best tune in a circuit. Most pilots have
enough to content with looking after the basics.

Concentration should be on good airmanship to prevent
the mistakes not devising instruments to detect faulty
airmanship, thus adding further distractions and workload
when the alarm bells start sounding.

Just imagine when a buzzer that you haven't for several
months starts sounding, and you then have to cycle
all the alarms to try to detect which one it is, crash............
..........

Dave

[Owain Walters]

At 20:42 15 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>pilots that don't even fly them, such as myself (I
>fly an 18
>m motorglider).

Eric,

Thanks very much. You have illustrated the whole problem
with the concept of the World Class beautifully.

A bunch of noisy psuedo-philanthropists sitting around
praising the pros of the World Class when they havent
even flown, yet alone competed in the class and judging
by your glider choice (I am presuming an ASH-26e) have
absolutely no intention to.

Owain

Libelle H201 - more performance than a PW5 and half
the price.

[Ben Flewett]

Confused Jack wrote:

'As might easily have been anticipated, you have taken
the egoist's approach to my remarks concerning unwarranted
criticisms of the PW-5 and of the World Class concept.
'

'I'm suggesting (and I wonder why you are not) that
I couldn't care less what aircraft someone chooses
to fly, but only about how well they fly it, and ultimately
what I might learn from them (and about them) in the
process.'


OK, just one more time...

I DON'T HATE THE PW5. I DON'T HATE THE WORLD CLASS
CONCEPT. IN FACT, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA WHICH
IS WHY I ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THIS SITE.

The PW5 has its place in the world and if people want
to fly them - why would I care? Yes, I believe the
PW5 does not represent value for money but I don’t
care if others disagree. However, it would appear
that only 300 people disagree which is not enough to
make an international class. What I do care about
is THE SELECTION OF THE PW5 FOR THE WORLD CLASS GLIDER.

The World Class is an excellent concept and I wish
it were the most popular class in gliding. However,
as a movement we made a bad selection for the World
Class glider which, as discussed, has led to the failure
of the class. I am raising for discussion the concept
of changing the PW5 for a glider that more people will
want to fly so we can have a successful World Class.


We have a problem in that we have committed to the
PW5 until 2009 but perhaps there is something that
can be done here - some suggestions have already been
made as a result of this discussion.

Ben.


At 07:48 16 March 2004, Jack wrote:
>On 3/15/04 6:15 AM, in article -b
>>erlin.de,
>'Ben Flewett' wrote:
>
>> ...[Schumacher's and Barrichello's] 'Mine is bigger
>>than yours' attitude
>> is ruining Formula One [and] John Coutts' (top ranked
>>glider pilot in the
>World)...has 'too much money and not enough character'.
>
>As might easily have been anticipated, you have taken
>the egoist's approach
>to my remarks concerning unwarranted criticisms of
>the PW-5 and of the World
>Class concept. A F1 Ferrari is as unsuited to the Baja
>off-road race as an
>ASW 27b is to the World Class. It would be irrational
>to think otherwise,
>no?
>
>If one chooses not to fly a PW-5 because the level
>of competition of which
>one is capable requires a mount far more esoteric,
>then by all means choose
>the more suitable ship. But that hardly justifies the
>near hatred expressed
>here towards the PW-5. The PW-5 has its place. The
>fact that it has not been
>universally adopted says more, I believe, about the
>psychology of the
>sailplane enthusiast than it does about the capabilities
>of the aircraft.
>
>
>> Are you honestly suggesting that people should WANT
>> to sell their beautiful German sailplanes and buy
>>PW5s?
>
>I'm suggesting (and I wonder why you are not) that
>I couldn't care less what
>aircraft someone chooses to fly, but only about how
>well they fly it, and
>ultimately what I might learn from them (and about
>them) in the process.
>
>
>> Have you ever flown a glider?
>
>Certainly, though not well enough and not often enough
>-- do you suppose
>that is the glider's fault?
>
>
>
>Jack
>
>

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi Uri,

The solution for a warning on air brakes unlocked prior to take off is quite
easy. Use a micro switch on the air brake handle and a pressure transducer
from a washing machine in series.
The pressure transducer is connected to Ptot with a restictor in the line.
The restrictor together with the volume of the pressure transducer will
cause a delay of several seconds before full Ptot is noticed.
The pressure transducer switches at about 80 km/h for increasing pressure
(at take off) and at about 40 km/h for decreasing pressure (after landing).
I use the same idea in the warning system of our new glider. Have a look at
http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm , figure 5.

Karel, NL



"Uri Saovray" > schreef in bericht
om...
> So if we agree this is a good idea, my main question is the design of
> the tow sensor:
> 1) It must be robust
> 2) It must not interfere with the hook mechanism (open spoilers AND
> can't release???)
> 3) If it is magnetic - will it interfere with the compass? Does
> anybody care?
> 4) A Large magnet at the end of the tow rope - will it survive the
> fall to the ground (either on winch or from the tug
> Ideas?
>
> Uri
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
>...
> > Uri Saovray wrote:
> > > Speaking of simple warning devices:
> > > How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
> > > airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers
> > > during tow)?
> > > A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part.
> > > What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas?
> > > Uri
> >
> > This would be an easy addition to the typical gear warning system, with
> > the new switch simply over-riding the gear switch. Fixed gear gliders
> > would need to add a spoiler switch and warning buzzer.
> >
> > Pilots concerned about warning proliferation could consider using a
> > voice chip to speak "Spoilers" and "Gear" for the two alerts, instead of
> > a buzzer. Voice chips are cheap and simple to use these days.

[Uri Saovray]

Pete,
Of course you are right about airmanship, etc. Same goes for almost
any other warning system. The fact is that this has happened too many
times, and I have seen it happening to people who's airmanship I DO
respect.
So IMHO, the next question is: If it's cheap and simple enough, why
not???
Uri

Pete Zeugma > wrote in message >...
> At 19:12 15 March 2004, Bruce Greeff wrote:
> >I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open
> >the airbrakes by moving my
> >left arm back.
>
> sure you're not over the max loading of it to then?
> ever thought of checking it more often since you know
> that you can open it so easily, or even having the
> overlock adjusted a bit tighter than your fit!

[David Hodgson]

Interesting discussion this World Class / PW5 thing!
Problem as I see it is:
1) the vast majority of people can only afford one
glider (if that).
2) Competion pilots only spend a small amount of their
total gliding time actually competeing in official
comps.
3) Most of us like to spend our XC time flying with
others around the same task, whether for company or
sport.

So for the comp pilot who fits in with 1, 2 and 3 which
most I believe do, the choice of machine is dictated
by the performance of their peer groups gliders (not
necessarily ego's)

So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.

I also can't help feeling we already have single design
comps! Look at the entries in any Stardard, 15mtr,
18mtr Nationals and whilst the badges may be different
on the gliders, the relative performance isn't.

Now for real fun we ought to take all national champions
from all countries and all classes. Put them in PW5's
and let them fight it out for a single, true World
Champion. That would be a comp to watch!

David H

[Pete Zeugma]

.......Because it breeds relience on some gadget, rather
than making a simple sequence of checks as instinctive
and natural as breathing.

I got into the habit long ago of leaving my last check,
the airbrakes, to last. I call cable on, and in response
to 'brakes closed and locked' I open them and close
them, and to the resounding thud of the overlock engaging
I say '...and locked!'
Thats how I was taught at our club.

............Probably the only alarm I would fit would
be to alert you that the undercarridge lever has been
moved off detent when on the ground. There is always
some idiot who will fiddle with your glider when parked
up, but then the canopy lock solved that one.

At 12:06 16 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
>Pete,
>Of course you are right about airmanship, etc. Same
>goes for almost
>any other warning system. The fact is that this has
>happened too many
>times, and I have seen it happening to people who's
>airmanship I DO
>respect.
>So IMHO, the next question is: If it's cheap and simple
>enough, why
>not???
>Uri
>
>Pete Zeugma wrote in message news:...
>> At 19:12 15 March 2004, Bruce Greeff wrote:
>> >I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open
>> >the airbrakes by moving my
>> >left arm back.
>>
>> sure you're not over the max loading of it to then?
>> ever thought of checking it more often since you know
>> that you can open it so easily, or even having the
>> overlock adjusted a bit tighter than your fit!
>

[Don Johnstone]

Absolutely correct. The point that has been missed
in all this is that having a warning device fitted
breeds reliance on that warning. If you don't believe
that consult Pavlov. The problem comes when the warning
device fails because the battery is flat or the electricity
can't bridge the air gap. Can you not hear the plaintive
cry 'Well I thought it was working, the warning did
not sound' or perhaps worse, 'Spinning, I can't have
been, there was no warning buzzer' There is no substitute
for paying attention, concentration and above all airmanship.
Does anyone want to rely on a microswitch cost a few
pence to keep them alive?

At 13:00 16 March 2004, Pete Zeugma wrote:
>.......Because it breeds relience on some gadget, rather
>than making a simple sequence of checks as instinctive
>and natural as breathing.
>
>I got into the habit long ago of leaving my last check,
>the airbrakes, to last. I call cable on, and in response
>to 'brakes closed and locked' I open them and close
>them, and to the resounding thud of the overlock engaging
>I say '...and locked!'
>Thats how I was taught at our club.
>
>............Probably the only alarm I would fit would
>be to alert you that the undercarridge lever has been
>moved off detent when on the ground. There is always
>some idiot who will fiddle with your glider when parked
>up, but then the canopy lock solved that one.
>
>At 12:06 16 March 2004, Uri Saovray wrote:
>>Pete,
>>Of course you are right about airmanship, etc. Same
>>goes for almost
>>any other warning system. The fact is that this has
>>happened too many
>>times, and I have seen it happening to people who's
>>airmanship I DO
>>respect.
>>So IMHO, the next question is: If it's cheap and simple
>>enough, why
>>not???
>>Uri
>>
>>Pete Zeugma wrote in message news:...
>>> At 19:12 15 March 2004, Bruce Greeff wrote:
>>> >I'm so tight in my Cirrus I can inadvertently open
>>> >the airbrakes by moving my
>>> >left arm back.
>>>
>>> sure you're not over the max loading of it to then?
>>> ever thought of checking it more often since you know
>>> that you can open it so easily, or even having the
>>> overlock adjusted a bit tighter than your fit!
>>
>
>
>

[Jim Vincent]

>The problem comes when the warning
>device fails because the battery is flat or the electricity
>can't bridge the air gap.

I test the circuit before each flight.

My spoiler warning curcuit rigged between the landing gear and spoilers on my
Jantar. The switch for the landing gear only opens if the landing gear is down
and the button on the handle is fully up, indicating a positive lock on the
landing gears. The switch on the spoilers only opens when the spoilers are in
the fully locked position.

To test, I depress the button on the landing gear handle and pop the spoilers a
little. This activates the gear warning by closing both switches.

Just in case one of the switches fails during flight, causing the alarm to go
off, I can deactive the system to avoid a beep-beep-beep on a long flight. I
have a toggle switch mounted high on the panel to power the circuit. Right
next to the switch is a large red LED. If I chose to deactive the gear warning
system, the red LED goes on.



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[John]

Do not know the precise details of how the audio vario works, but the
idea is an audio tone is generated based on how fast air is moving
into/out of a fixed chamber.

Could you not take an audio vario, delete the chamber, and plumb the
vario to a "stall horn" type device?

The idea I have, is the vario makes no noise on the sitting on the
ground, but does make noise when exposed to airflow (specifically,
changing airflow due to climbing/descending). Same thing with a
"stall horn"....makes noise only when exposed to airflow.

Perhaps all we need to do is add a "T" fitting, some more tubing, and
a selection valve to our current audio vario. Plumb the new tubing to
a pitot bent at the tip to start picking up airflow if the plane
pitches up to the stall angle (rest of the time, the pitot would be
"flat" to the airflow and just measuring static pressure).

If this works, then all you have to do prior to landing, is switch the
vario's input from the normal TE probe to the new "angled pitot" AOA
probe. If you start hearing audio tone from the vario, lower the nose
to reduce AOA.

Anybody have comments on if this would work?

John

[Bill Daniels]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > All I can say is try it. If it doesn't do anything for you, rip 'em
off.
> > It's a pretty cheap experiment.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
>
>
> A few years ago I tried the same thing on an LS4. It worked, but was
> so sensitive to yaw that the readings were not very useful.
>
> I still wish I could have an audio AOA tone with the gear down (and
> matched to the flap setting) that would indicate whether I was fast,
> on-speed, slow, or REALLY SLOW (just like the good old F-4). Just
> having a stall indication is unfortunately only giving the pilot some
> of the information he really needs. And having an accurate audio tone
> would allow the pilot to keep a lot more attention outside the cockpit
> during the landing pattern (which is kinda nice).
>
> It's really AOA that we fly when slow anyway, using airspeed as an
> approximation...
>
> Nice thing about AOA instead of airspeed is that it automatically
> compensates for weight, so landing back immediatly after takeoff full
> of water (rope break, aborted winch launch) would be a lot safer.
>
> With the gear up, no audio but the AOA for min sink (regardless of
> ballast and bank angle and adjusted for flap position), L/D max, and
> best acceleration/min drag (when pushing out of a thermal) could be
> shown with individual LEDs or a simple edge indicator, to give the
> pilot an idea how he is optimizing his flying.
>
> How about it, some smart person? I guarantee, once you fly AOA, you'll
> never go back to chasing the ASI!
>
> Kirk

I absolutely agree that AOA data would be invaluable for the reasons you
listed and that once a pilot became used to flying with AOA data, airspeed
data would look archaic. Getting data as good as you had on the F4 will not
be easy with a glider.

Bill Daniels

[Bruce Greeff]

Hi John

Std Cirrus - I know the geometric lock needs adjusting...
Mine goes at 5-10kg which is WAY out of spec - although it was set by a
professional at last inspection.

Bruce

[Cliff Hilty]

At 13:24 16 March 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
'This is a good point. The Skylane that I own a small
piece of has a horn that sounds about 10 kts before
the actual stall - and as such, is pretty useless,
IMHO. This is pretty typical for most power planes
and during a normal landing you expect it to go off.'

Tony
I fly power too and I have to disagree with you. The
stall warning is of great input to me. I want it to
go off during landing but not until I am within a couple
of feet of the ground if it is beeping at me when I
am still high on final Its input may save my life!
The same would be true of my Ventus as well! I have
many more hours in my Ventus than all of my power time
so it is not as likely that I would have a problem
in keeping the speed up but when flying different gliders
or other power aircraft, I appreciate a stall warning.
It is easy to get distracted and slow down your scan
of all of the instruments as well as looking for traffic
and maybe the trim is not set just right and the aircraft
starts to slow down on final. This is when it works
for me IMHO!

[Marcel Duenner]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Jon Meyer wrote:
> > I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
> > glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
> > the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
> > an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
> > more succesful.
>
> If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an
> LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4
> was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using
> your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It
> costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy
> one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for
> less money I can get a used LS4?".

Please check your history book.
The Std. Cirrus was on the market in 1969. The LS4 went into
production in 1981 and there were over 800 built by the time the PW5
was introduced in 1994.
But that doesn't really matter since the statement was: it would have
been more successful.

[Eric Greenwell]

Todd Pattist wrote:
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
>
>
>>The solution for a warning on air brakes unlocked prior to take off is quite
>>easy. Use a micro switch on the air brake handle and a pressure transducer
>
>>from a washing machine in series.
>
> I'm confused as to why you need a pressure transducer. Just
> put a microswitch on the Tost that detects the presence of
> the towring, and wire that in series with the existing
> sensor on the airbrakes. The airbrake sensor provides power
> to both the gear sensor switch and the Tost sensor switch.
> They both send power to the buzzer. If the brakes are
> opened with the gear up or the ring inserted, your buzzer
> goes off. Conversely, if the brakes are open and the ring
> is inserted for the tow the buzzer sounds. Why wait until
> you are rolling or in the air to sound the buzzer?
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

The pressure sensor would be great for a self-launching sailplane. It
would also avoid alerting when the pilot had the spoilers open purposely
at the start of the launch, as some pilots do to avoid wing drop or
running over the towrope. An alert in those situations might not be a
bad thing, as it would test the system, and the pilot would be fully
aware that he was causing it.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Owain Walters wrote:

> At 20:42 15 March 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>>pilots that don't even fly them, such as myself (I
>>fly an 18
>>m motorglider).
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks very much. You have illustrated the whole problem
> with the concept of the World Class beautifully.
>
> A bunch of noisy psuedo-philanthropists

Not noisy: I think we've been quite restrained. I haven't even called
anybody "rubbish" yet.

Not psuedo: I believe I have contributed considerably to people's safety
and enjoyment of soaring over the 30 years I've been in the sport. And
that's what I think I am doing here, in this discussion, even though it
isn't contributing to YOUR enjoyment.

sitting around
> praising the pros of the World Class when they havent
> even flown,

I've flown two of them, and enjoyed it. I've also flown one of it's
competitors in the class, the Russia, and enjoyed it. I even flew it in
a Regional contest, letting my glider sit on the ground.

> yet alone competed in the class and judging
> by your glider choice (I am presuming an ASH-26e) have
> absolutely no intention to.

An unpowered glider doesn't fit my desires, but I don't disparage them.
If I were a strong competitor, I'd go looking for a PW5 to borrow or
buy. Frankly, the the only way I'd be a winner beyond the local level in
the World Class would be if I could use the LS4 some people dream about
as the World Class glider.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Owain Walters]

>Frankly, the the only way I'd be a winner beyond the
>local >level in
>the World Class would be if I could use the LS4 some
>people >dream about
>as the World Class glider.


Eric,

I dont get your point.... are you saying that if the
World Class glider was the LS4 you would win National
or International Compeition but as its a PW5 you cant?
Surely your skills/knowledge are relevant in a one
glider class regardless of which glider it is? Whether
it be a PW5 or a LS4.

Which brings us kind of full circle. The argument is
not against the World Class just against the requirements
and in turn against the PW5. As far as I can see the
requirements have killed any chance the World Class
had of success before it even started. And to be honest
I think there is enough evidence of that to prove that
it isnt just an opnion.

Personally I think the World Class has missed the boat.
The club class is taking over the 'Affordable competition'
section of competitive gliding.

Owain

[Bill Daniels]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> > What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas
>
> Install a strain gauge internal to the fuselage right up against the hook
> mount. Get Peter Masak to design a simple circuit that trips an
electronic
> relay when the strain exceeds a certain amount. Knowing Peter, it should
take
> him less than an hour.
>
Jim, if you go that route, build the strain gauge to display the hook
tension to the pilot for the purposes of flying a winch launch.

Bill Daniels

[Kevin Neave]

I think Eric was suggesting he'd be competeitive flying
an LS4 if the others were still flying PW5s

:-)

>

[303pilot]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Jon Meyer wrote:
>
> > Are you therefore saying that the world class must
> > have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
> > as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
>
> No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.
>
It is my understanding that the wingspan was driven by the desire to keep
open the homebuilding option and 13 meter wings will fit in a typical US
garage but 15 meters won't. Given that only one World Class Glider has been
homebuilt (and that by the person on the comittee who championed the cause
of preserving the homebuilding option), homebuilding doesn't seem to be a
meaningful requirement.

As the cliche goes, "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy"

While shorter wings are probably cheaper, what really costs a lot of money
are small production runs.

Would an LS-4-like 15 meter ship attract more folks to the World Class?
Probably.
Would it attract enough to make a difference? Probably not.
Reason? Switching costs. Most of us can't afford 2 ships. If I already
have an ASW-20 or a 303, or an LS-3, or a DG200, or, or, or... to get into
the World Class I'd be trading like for like. Why do that? The only upside
being competing in a single class--but that's likely what I do already (more
or less) via Sports or Club class.

My opinion is that the fundamental problem of the World Class lies in the
population of glider pilots. Several hundred people, some small but
meaningful % of glider pilots, bought PW5s. Many that I know of were bought
by fairly new pilots and clubs--exactly the right target. Only problem was
that % multiplied by the pilot population was too small to yeild a viable
pool of contestants. Not really the fault of the ship's performance,
design, price, or anything other than market size and target profile.

Brent

[Jim Vincent]

>Jim, if you go that route, build the strain gauge to display the hook
>tension to the pilot for the purposes of flying a winch launch.
>

Good thought Bill, but I think it require at least two strain gauges to
implement this. Since the direction of the load changes during the course of
the winch launch, the load could not be measured by just one strain gauge. Two
are needed to provide the raw data to the instrument. Then, you need to do a
complete calibration of the system to determine the load ratios for various
angles and tensions since these are not readily calculatable. Then you need to
program a CPU accordingly.

Just a simple load / no load determination is far easier.

IMHO, regarding tension values during a winch launch, I've driven hundreds of
winch launches and believe the only value of a tension meter is to tell you if
you're approaching the breaking force of the cable/rope. The feedback from
engine noise, spool speed, glider pitch attitude, etc are far more valuable to
me when winching.

Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Liam Finley]

The problem here is, no matter how well argued your position that the
PW-5 should be replaced as the world class glider, you've got a group
of people who've invested alot in these things, and if you take away
the World Class designation their resale value goes off a cliff. I
mean, the PW-5 stands out as a poor performer even among other sub-15m
ships, and they know it. Whenever you see a debate over the PW-5 vs.
Russia, or PW-5 vs. Sparrowhawk, or whatever, the PW5er's always end
up invoking the World Class designation as their ace in the hole.

This group of financially interested PW-5 supporters may not be large
enough to form a viable international racing class, but they are large
enough to stand as a roadblock in the way of an improved World Class
in the future.


Ben Flewett > wrote in message >...
> Confused Jack wrote:

> OK, just one more time...
>
> I DON'T HATE THE PW5. I DON'T HATE THE WORLD CLASS
> CONCEPT. IN FACT, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA WHICH
> IS WHY I ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THIS SITE.
>
> The PW5 has its place in the world and if people want
> to fly them - why would I care? Yes, I believe the
> PW5 does not represent value for money but I don?t
> care if others disagree. However, it would appear
> that only 300 people disagree which is not enough to
> make an international class. What I do care about
> is THE SELECTION OF THE PW5 FOR THE WORLD CLASS GLIDER.
>
> The World Class is an excellent concept and I wish
> it were the most popular class in gliding. However,
> as a movement we made a bad selection for the World
> Class glider which, as discussed, has led to the failure
> of the class. I am raising for discussion the concept
> of changing the PW5 for a glider that more people will
> want to fly so we can have a successful World Class.
>
>
> We have a problem in that we have committed to the
> PW5 until 2009 but perhaps there is something that
> can be done here - some suggestions have already been
> made as a result of this discussion.
>
> Ben.
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
...
> >Jim, if you go that route, build the strain gauge to display the hook
> >tension to the pilot for the purposes of flying a winch launch.
> >
>
> Good thought Bill, but I think it require at least two strain gauges to
> implement this. Since the direction of the load changes during the course
of
> the winch launch, the load could not be measured by just one strain gauge.
Two
> are needed to provide the raw data to the instrument. Then, you need to
do a
> complete calibration of the system to determine the load ratios for
various
> angles and tensions since these are not readily calculatable. Then you
need to
> program a CPU accordingly.
>
> Just a simple load / no load determination is far easier.
>
> IMHO, regarding tension values during a winch launch, I've driven hundreds
of
> winch launches and believe the only value of a tension meter is to tell
you if
> you're approaching the breaking force of the cable/rope. The feedback
from
> engine noise, spool speed, glider pitch attitude, etc are far more
valuable to
> me when winching.
>
> Jim Vincent
> CFIG
> N483SZ
>

I was thinking that the winch driver would see the glider airspeed via
telemetry and thus control it precisely and the pilot would control the
tension with a panel mounted meter. That way the pilot gets the right
airspeed and precisely loads the glider and cable to whatever value he feels
comfortable with up to the breaking strength of the weak link.

Bill Daniels

[Going fer it]

> So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
> I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
> and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
> of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.

Guess you havent heard of hiring huh :-)
>

> Now for real fun we ought to take all national champions
> from all countries and all classes. Put them in PW5's
> and let them fight it out for a single, true World
> Champion. That would be a comp to watch!
>
Its sorta been done.
The first World Class Worlds in Turkey.....
Included a number of National champs as well as world champs!


43 pilots from 23 nations - among them two women - competed in the
contest.
Among the competitors were very experienced pilots - e.g. three former
World Champions -but also pilots with lesser experience. Astonishingly
the former World Champions ended on the places 8, 13 and 14.

........
http://members.lycos.co.uk/steve_smyk/ go to 1st World
Championship for results

So now perhaps you might understand while the "eletist" element dont
like PW5s.
They got their ASS KICKED by real pilots who were not relying on the
gliders performance to do the work :-)

Have seen the same reaction amongst other so called "Gun" pilots who
get wacked at PW5 level. ie its a crap aircraft etc etc.

As always "Dear Reader" you will probably feed your own prejudices :-)

[Paul]

I guess the result had nothing to do with team flying?
Just luck that the first two pilots where the French team?
It proves that its hard to compete against a well organised team with alot
of resources.
Isn't that going against the World Class ethos. That the best man wins?


"Going fer it" > wrote in message
om...
> > So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
> > I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
> > and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
> > of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.
>
> Guess you havent heard of hiring huh :-)
> >
>
> > Now for real fun we ought to take all national champions
> > from all countries and all classes. Put them in PW5's
> > and let them fight it out for a single, true World
> > Champion. That would be a comp to watch!
> >
> Its sorta been done.
> The first World Class Worlds in Turkey.....
> Included a number of National champs as well as world champs!
>
>
> 43 pilots from 23 nations - among them two women - competed in the
> contest.
> Among the competitors were very experienced pilots - e.g. three former
> World Champions -but also pilots with lesser experience. Astonishingly
> the former World Champions ended on the places 8, 13 and 14.
>
> .......
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/steve_smyk/ go to 1st World
> Championship for results
>
> So now perhaps you might understand while the "eletist" element dont
> like PW5s.
> They got their ASS KICKED by real pilots who were not relying on the
> gliders performance to do the work :-)
>
> Have seen the same reaction amongst other so called "Gun" pilots who
> get wacked at PW5 level. ie its a crap aircraft etc etc.
>
> As always "Dear Reader" you will probably feed your own prejudices :-)

[Mark James Boyd]

Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
>This is a good point. The Skylane that I own a small piece of has a horn
>that sounds about 10 kts before the actual stall - and as such, is
>pretty useless, IMHO.

I've had the horn in a Cezzna save me twice. Both times
at max gross, once on takeoff on a hot day, once on a night
IFR missed approach. I didn't think it could happen to
me. It did. Four people are alive and well because somebody
decided a stall horn was a good idea. I'd like to find that
guy, thank him, and buy him dinner.

The excellent point that an AOA indicator is the simplest and
most effective way to detect oncoming stall was very well
pointed out by the poster who mentioned ballast. Very different
airspeeds with ballast vs. without, and not something easily
computed. Wind shear is another circumstance where AOA indications
are much faster and easier to interpret than airspeed and/or pitch.
There are some dusk wind shear glider fatalities where I believe an
AOA or stall horn would have saved the day.

>Dick Johnson feels that a properly designed stall warning works in
>gliders. He knows more than I.

I agree.

I did have a twinge from the poster who said like
pavlov's dog, one can become reliant on the horn. Then if it
fails, one is out of luck. I dunno, I guess having the horn
go off a bunch of times and doing the right thing is
cheaper than hiring an instructor. Maybe one can learn
enough along the way so that when the horn fails, one can still
avoid the stall...

Still, the Pavlov comment was a good one and got me thinking...

In a power plane, checking the stall horn is part of (most)
preflights. Most power planes require a stall horn as part of
the type certification. I suppose you could check it as a
mandatory part of the pre-flight in a glider too, and perhaps
use a "harmonica" style so it didn't use electrics.

Or use the string AOA idea. I'd like to see this work. I'm
not so keen on having something else the pilot has to
LOOK at (vs. hearing). But who knows, and it's a fun
experiment...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Cliff Hilty > wrote:
> At 13:24 16 March 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>'This is a good point. The Skylane that I own a small
>piece of has a horn that sounds about 10 kts before
>the actual stall - and as such, is pretty useless,
>
>Tony
>I fly power too and I have to disagree with you. The
>stall warning is of great input to me. I want it to

Cessna part # 0713348-1 Stall Warning Horn (harmonica type)
$13.09

I wonder about the dimensions (curvature), and how hard it would be
to put one on each wing of a 1-26?

I've had no experience with fiberglass, so I don't know
if this is practical for glass gliders...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:405766f7$1@darkstar...
> Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> >
> >This is a good point. The Skylane that I own a small piece of has a horn
> >that sounds about 10 kts before the actual stall - and as such, is
> >pretty useless, IMHO.
>
> I've had the horn in a Cezzna save me twice. Both times
> at max gross, once on takeoff on a hot day, once on a night
> IFR missed approach. I didn't think it could happen to
> me. It did. Four people are alive and well because somebody
> decided a stall horn was a good idea. I'd like to find that
> guy, thank him, and buy him dinner.
>
> The excellent point that an AOA indicator is the simplest and
> most effective way to detect oncoming stall was very well
> pointed out by the poster who mentioned ballast. Very different
> airspeeds with ballast vs. without, and not something easily
> computed. Wind shear is another circumstance where AOA indications
> are much faster and easier to interpret than airspeed and/or pitch.
> There are some dusk wind shear glider fatalities where I believe an
> AOA or stall horn would have saved the day.
>
> >Dick Johnson feels that a properly designed stall warning works in
> >gliders. He knows more than I.
>
> I agree.
>
> I did have a twinge from the poster who said like
> pavlov's dog, one can become reliant on the horn. Then if it
> fails, one is out of luck. I dunno, I guess having the horn
> go off a bunch of times and doing the right thing is
> cheaper than hiring an instructor. Maybe one can learn
> enough along the way so that when the horn fails, one can still
> avoid the stall...
>
> Still, the Pavlov comment was a good one and got me thinking...
>
> In a power plane, checking the stall horn is part of (most)
> preflights. Most power planes require a stall horn as part of
> the type certification. I suppose you could check it as a
> mandatory part of the pre-flight in a glider too, and perhaps
> use a "harmonica" style so it didn't use electrics.
>
> Or use the string AOA idea. I'd like to see this work. I'm
> not so keen on having something else the pilot has to
> LOOK at (vs. hearing). But who knows, and it's a fun
> experiment...
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

I'm not sure I buy the Pavlov argument. These are warning systems we are
talking about and, if the glider is flown the way it is supposed to be
flown, they will never be heard. They should sound only under extraordinary
circumstances when the pilots self-discipline has failed.

I'd be really concerned about a pilot who always waited for the gear horn
before remembering to put the gear down. I was always taught that if I hear
a warning horn, I've already screwed up. Strive to fly so you never hear
one. (Except for that dratted Cessna stall horn sounding in the flare.)

Bill Daniels

[Mark James Boyd]

>Install a strain gauge internal to the fuselage right up against the hook
>mount. Get Peter Masak to design a simple circuit that trips an electronic
>relay when the strain exceeds a certain amount. Knowing Peter, it should take
>him less than an hour.
>
>Jim Vincent

I've been thinking about how to measure strain on the
rope during auto-tow, but this time from the auto side, not the
glider side.

I'm planning to tow using a 50# spring scale, and never exceed
40#, and see how long (far) it takes to accelerate to rotation
speed. For 500#, I seem to get calculations near to 1000ft or so.
I'd like to see if a 40# thrust AMT turbine would accelerate
a 500# glider to rotation in a reasonable runway length
(say 2000 ft or less).

As a second issue, I'm wondering if anyone has measurements of
the typical strain on a winch or auto tow rope. I'm
guessing .5 to .9 times the glider weight (probably near the
highest altitude right before release, right?).

Spring-type weight measuring devices for up to around hundreds of
pounds are in the $200 range. In the 500#+ range, though, things
get pricey...



--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Bill Daniels]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4057718f$1@darkstar...
> >Install a strain gauge internal to the fuselage right up against the hook
> >mount. Get Peter Masak to design a simple circuit that trips an
electronic
> >relay when the strain exceeds a certain amount. Knowing Peter, it should
take
> >him less than an hour.
> >
> >Jim Vincent
>
> I've been thinking about how to measure strain on the
> rope during auto-tow, but this time from the auto side, not the
> glider side.
>
> I'm planning to tow using a 50# spring scale, and never exceed
> 40#, and see how long (far) it takes to accelerate to rotation
> speed. For 500#, I seem to get calculations near to 1000ft or so.
> I'd like to see if a 40# thrust AMT turbine would accelerate
> a 500# glider to rotation in a reasonable runway length
> (say 2000 ft or less).
>
> As a second issue, I'm wondering if anyone has measurements of
> the typical strain on a winch or auto tow rope. I'm
> guessing .5 to .9 times the glider weight (probably near the
> highest altitude right before release, right?).
>
> Spring-type weight measuring devices for up to around hundreds of
> pounds are in the $200 range. In the 500#+ range, though, things
> get pricey...
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

Much cheaper is a old-style (no vacuum assist) automobile master cylinder
and a hydraulic pressure gauge - or various junkyard parts to that effect.
Rent a 2000 pound scale to calibrate it.

Best launch winch or auto is a line tension of 1.0 x takeoff weight for the
whole launch. (Assumes the winch/tow-car driver and pilot know what they
are doing.)

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[K.P. Termaat]

Probably my explanation was not good enough. The airbrake microswitch and
the switch of the pressure transducer are in series. However with no
pressure (glider on the ground) the switch of the pressure transducer is
closed and opens reluctantly when pressure comes on (glider rolling for take
off). So this system gives a warning for airbrakes unlocked (or open) prior
to take off; it does not give an alert when flying with normal speed and
airbrakes open.
See my figure 5 of http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm

Karel, NL


"Eric Greenwell" > schreef in bericht
...
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The solution for a warning on air brakes unlocked prior to take off is
quite
> >>easy. Use a micro switch on the air brake handle and a pressure
transducer
> >
> >>from a washing machine in series.
> >
> > I'm confused as to why you need a pressure transducer. Just
> > put a microswitch on the Tost that detects the presence of
> > the towring, and wire that in series with the existing
> > sensor on the airbrakes. The airbrake sensor provides power
> > to both the gear sensor switch and the Tost sensor switch.
> > They both send power to the buzzer. If the brakes are
> > opened with the gear up or the ring inserted, your buzzer
> > goes off. Conversely, if the brakes are open and the ring
> > is inserted for the tow the buzzer sounds. Why wait until
> > you are rolling or in the air to sound the buzzer?
> > Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> > (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
> The pressure sensor would be great for a self-launching sailplane. It
> would also avoid alerting when the pilot had the spoilers open purposely
> at the start of the launch, as some pilots do to avoid wing drop or
> running over the towrope. An alert in those situations might not be a
> bad thing, as it would test the system, and the pilot would be fully
> aware that he was causing it.
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Jon Meyer wrote:
>
>I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.
>
>Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
>new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
>the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).
>
>A big part of this was to achieve "cheap".
>
>> Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
>> for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
>> for a world class glider,
>
>If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly.

Having seen three used PW-5's/Russias in the past year for
half the price of an LS-4, cost is an issue...

I'd also have to classify myself not as a soaring performance
enthusiast, but as a soaring consumer. Sort of like I'd
have a boombox instead of a six-speaker Bose, a 32" TV instead of HDTV,
etc. As a soaring consumer, I fit what Carl Herold has profiled:
doing X-C in 1-2 years in the sport, having soaring as a hobby,
etc.

As a consumer, I'm thrilled about the NON-performance aspects of soaring
that the PW-5, Russia, and Sparrowhawk provide.
Namely, lower cost, lighter weight, simpler features, modern
technology (which does not necessarily mean better performance).

Having lighter wings to assemble, a smaller trailer, shorter
wings, no flaps/gear/water ballast certainly are not things
that help performance, they only appeal to me as a consumer/hobbyist.

I can completely understand why the soaring enthusiasts would be baffled
at anyone who wants a new glider which performs worse than
the top 50% of gliders in the world. From their perspective,
which is perfectly understandable, this is absurd.

But if you eliminate the word "performance," every single
aspect now goes the other way. This is what I as a
soaring "consumer" look for in value.

Model aircraft builders have a similar quandry. The motor
airplane builders enjoy much more performance, but the
electric models are much easier to start, cleaner, and
less expensive. Electric model aircraft are gaining a lot of
popularity with "consumers."

I don't expect a Yugo to be appreciated by Ferrari drivers...
But you can drive a Yugo by the Ferrari shop AND the
gas station every day... ;)

I don't think the World Class will ever draw pilots out of their
retract gliders in any numbers. The fixed gear and low cost
(read short wings) simply can never challenge span and
reduced drag. The World Class is a consumer class, and I
don't expect the enthusiasts to accept reduced performance...

On another note, I would like to see the World Class develop in
2009. One change perhaps is the "homebuild" option. This may
have discouraged some entries, and I'm not sure added any benefit
(another poster said this too). I would also like to
see a 36:1 or better glide as a minimum. I think the Sparrowhawk
Russia, Apis and Silent all have the potential to compete
with only minor modifications (different wings, changes to eliminate
flaps, different landing gear designs, etc.). And a lot of
improvement can happen given five years...

Will any of this now attract soaring "enthusiasts" to trade in their LS-4s?
I don't think so. But hey, I'm comfortable with that...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Dave Martin > wrote:
>
>We now seem to be advocating warnings and buzzers for
>every eventuality. This is a list of the sounds a pilot
>is expected to cope with if everyones idea are translated
>into reality, it may not be complete..........
>
>Under carriage
>Flaps
>Stall alert (2 one for each wing tip)
>Tail dolly
>Low battery
>Canopy
>Main Pin
>G Meter
>Spoiler alert
>Aircraft Proximity alarm (only good if everyone has
>one fitted)
>Tyre pressure alert
>Brake pad wear alert
>
>Add to this one essential noise
>
>Vario
>
>And a few helpful ones
>
>Radio
>GPS alerts
>Turn point alerts
>Approaching airspace alerts on nav aides

Nope. I'm only interested in the buzzer that
warns against the problem that caused 50% of the
glider fatalities in the last 10 years.

Only one line on your list does that...

You can keep the rest...

<true to form I've not even had an audio Vario in the past year>
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Ben Flewett > wrote:
>
>We have a problem in that we have committed to the
>PW5 until 2009 but perhaps there is something that
>can be done here - some suggestions have already been
>made as a result of this discussion.

Now THAT is a completely true statement. I must say I'm
remarkably pleased there was as much discussion as I've seen.
This can ONLY improve the participation and decision
in 2009. And that isn't too far off, so get your
opinions to the IGC soon, and start designing and building
your World Class entry...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Jim Vincent]

I was thinking that the winch driver would see the glider airspeed via
>telemetry and thus control it precisely and the pilot would control the
>tension with a panel mounted meter. That way the pilot gets the right
>airspeed and precisely loads the glider and cable to whatever value he feels
>comfortable with up to the breaking strength of the weak link.

Bill,

Actually, I did this last year. I took an old radio control transmitter,
mounted it in a small box, and put one control potentiometer on a thumb wheel
mounted to a hand grip. In the winch, I have the receiver with a servo mounted
to the window in front of me. The servo has a long orange stick attached.

If the pilot wants to go faster, he thumbs forward, which moves the servo and
flag up. If slower, then down. If good, then horizontal.

Haven't tried it yet, but it was a fun project!


Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Andreas Maurer]

On 16 Mar 2004 13:28:47 -0800, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


>I've been thinking about how to measure strain on the
>rope during auto-tow, but this time from the auto side, not the
>glider side.

No need to measure anything - maths are completely sufficient to
calculate this. :)

In level flight the drag of a glider is

(1) drag = weight / (L/D)

example: 500lbs glider, L/D is 40, drag will be 12.5 lbs. This will be
also the strain on the tow rope in level flight. Adjusting this
formula for a climb is simple.


>I'm planning to tow using a 50# spring scale, and never exceed
>40#, and see how long (far) it takes to accelerate to rotation
>speed. For 500#, I seem to get calculations near to 1000ft or so.
>I'd like to see if a 40# thrust AMT turbine would accelerate
>a 500# glider to rotation in a reasonable runway length
>(say 2000 ft or less).

Aircraft weight: 500 lbs
Engine thrust: 40 lbs
Liftoff speed: 34 kts

(2) F = m * a. F = engine thrust
m = glider weight
a = acceleration

(3) a = F/m F = 177.6 N = 40 lbs
m = 226 kg = 500 lbs
-> a = 0.79 m/s^2

(4) v = a * t v = liftoff speed (22.2 meters/sec = 34 kts)
t = time to reach v

(5) t = v / a

-> t = 28.1 seconds

(s) s = 0.5 * a * t^2 s = distance covered (during t = 28.1 seconds)

-> s = 307 meters = 1010 ft.



>As a second issue, I'm wondering if anyone has measurements of
>the typical strain on a winch or auto tow rope. I'm
>guessing .5 to .9 times the glider weight (probably near the
>highest altitude right before release, right?).

Strain during winch launch can easily be calculated by the weak link:
If a Ka-8 (weight 600 lbs) manages to break a weak link of 1.000 lbs,
maximum strain is 1.000 lbs. Maximum strain happens during the initial
acceleration of a heavy glider when still on the ground and in the
phase of maximum climb angle (usually between 300 and 900 ft).


Bye
Andreas

[Cliff Hilty]

The stall 'horn' in the Katana DA20-C1 is nothing more
than a hole in the leading edge that at the right angle
'whistles'. Quite effective I might add too! Ready
to get the drill out for your leading edges;')


>Or use the string AOA idea. I'd like to see this work.
> I'm
>not so keen on having something else the pilot has
>to
>LOOK at (vs. hearing). But who knows, and it's a fun
>experiment...
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

[Lennie the Lurker]

Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
>

> Which brings us kind of full circle. The argument is
> not against the World Class just against the requirements
> and in turn against the PW5.

Or in other words, against the original concepts of the class. Even
though you have no interest in flying it, or letting those that do fly
it do so without a lot of unneeded derision.

As a former 1-26 owner, why am I not surprised?

Soaring is going to die a well deserved death, killed from within, not
from outside influence.

[Sevenbravo]

I think the best alarm would be the alarming fact that you are not
climbing well on tow (if at all) and that when you look out at the
spoiler, you SEE that they are up! Of course a preflight checklist
would prevent having to rely on any alarm.

[Bruce Greeff]

Sevenbravo wrote:
> I think the best alarm would be the alarming fact that you are not
> climbing well on tow (if at all) and that when you look out at the
> spoiler, you SEE that they are up! Of course a preflight checklist
> would prevent having to rely on any alarm.

There is no substitute for situational awareness. No amount of toys is going to
influence the actions of the oblivious.

[Marcel Duenner]

(Going fer it) wrote in message >...
> > So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
> > I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
> > and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
> > of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.
>
> Guess you havent heard of hiring huh :-)
> >
>

Have you ever hired a glider for World or Continental Campionships?
It's probably cheaper to buy a glider and sell it again afterwards.
Only difficulty here is the long wait for a new glider...

> > Now for real fun we ought to take all national champions
> > from all countries and all classes. Put them in PW5's
> > and let them fight it out for a single, true World
> > Champion. That would be a comp to watch!
> >
> Its sorta been done.
> The first World Class Worlds in Turkey.....
> Included a number of National champs as well as world champs!
>
>


> 43 pilots from 23 nations - among them two women - competed in the
> contest.
> Among the competitors were very experienced pilots - e.g. three former
> World Champions -but also pilots with lesser experience. Astonishingly
> the former World Champions ended on the places 8, 13 and 14.
>


Some former World Champions finished far worse at the wgc last year in
Poland. In proper elitist gliders...
If you had ever competed at World or European Campionships you would
know that most people finishing in the top 10 are also capable of
winning.

> .......
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/steve_smyk/ go to 1st World
> Championship for results
>
> So now perhaps you might understand while the "eletist" element dont
> like PW5s.
> They got their ASS KICKED by real pilots who were not relying on the
> gliders performance to do the work :-)
>
> Have seen the same reaction amongst other so called "Gun" pilots who
> get wacked at PW5 level. ie its a crap aircraft etc etc.
>

I can't quite follow your argument.
You only mention the world champions. But look at the others, too:
1st and 2nd place by a strong french team, both have competed at world
championships before or are strong competitors at French national
level.
also places 5 and 7 are frequent wgc competitors.
At the 2nd WC-wgc winner and runner-up swapped places. 3rd was
Sebastian Kawa, himself not a no-name either.
At the 3rd WC-wgc Darroze won (he came 2nd at the 2003 wgc Standard
Class), Kawa 2nd.

[Jack]

On 3/16/04 6:06 AM, in article ,
"David Hodgson" > wrote:

> ...we ought to take all national champions ...and... [p]ut them in
> PW5's and let them fight it out for a single, true World Champion.

That things like that have not been done is one reason that the WC concept
has not been successful: a more important factor, I believe, than the choice
of a particular design.


Jack

[Ben Flewett]

At 20:24 16 March 2004, Going Fer It wrote:
>> So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
>> I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
>> and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
>> of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.
>
>Guess you havent heard of hiring huh :-)


Here is an interesting fact - hiring a PW5 in either
NZ or Nitra would have cost you more than renting a
Ventus 2 for a proper World Gliding Champs.

[Owain Walters]

>As a former 1-26 owner, why am I not surprised?
>
>Soaring is going to die a well deserved death, killed
>from within, not
>from outside influence.

Lennie,

I see you still havent got a life yet. When are you
going to go gliding again? Come on over, I will take
you gliding, it may get rid of all that negativity
you display towards our sport/hobby. If you are not
interested in gliding then please sod off and leave
us alone.

I do not post on Lathe websites, as I am not interested
in them. Neither do I post on bird-watching websites,
again as I am not interested. Do you see what I am
getting at?

Owain

[Christopher J. Wilson]

Perhaps if the PW5 didnt look like it does there wouldn't
be as much debate about the world class? I think the
overall idea of the single design class etc. was well
founded with great intentions, but after seeing the
selection of platforms which were put forward to become
the single design; i'd have probably asked them all
to 're-tender'. If a design which looks similar to
a current std class glider were put forward at the
cost and specification of the pw5 (with perhaps at
slightly better performance), i beleive it would have
been a more rousing success.

Back in reference to the thread, Jon's original post
says it all...

A glider with 1940's performance made for a single
design competition at a y2k price that looks like the
pw5 is destined to failure in gliding and will never
represent 'value for money'. I beleive it would have
been far easier to try change the design of the PW5
or similar than try and socially engineer the gliding
populis's ways and personalities.

Chris ;-)

[Pete Zeugma]

lots of links in your chain then.

At 14:12 16 March 2004, Jim Vincent wrote:
>>The problem comes when the warning
>>device fails because the battery is flat or the electricity
>>can't bridge the air gap.
>
>I test the circuit before each flight.
>
>My spoiler warning curcuit rigged between the landing
>gear and spoilers on my
>Jantar. The switch for the landing gear only opens
>if the landing gear is down
>and the button on the handle is fully up, indicating
>a positive lock on the
>landing gears. The switch on the spoilers only opens
>when the spoilers are in
>the fully locked position.
>
>To test, I depress the button on the landing gear handle
>and pop the spoilers a
>little. This activates the gear warning by closing
>both switches.
>
>Just in case one of the switches fails during flight,
>causing the alarm to go
>off, I can deactive the system to avoid a beep-beep-beep
>on a long flight. I
>have a toggle switch mounted high on the panel to power
>the circuit. Right
>next to the switch is a large red LED. If I chose
>to deactive the gear warning
>system, the red LED goes on.
>
>
>
>Jim Vincent
>CFIG
>N483SZ

>

[Andy Durbin]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> Probably my explanation was not good enough. The airbrake microswitch and
> the switch of the pressure transducer are in series. However with no
> pressure (glider on the ground) the switch of the pressure transducer is
> closed and opens reluctantly when pressure comes on (glider rolling for take
> off). So this system gives a warning for airbrakes unlocked (or open) prior
> to take off; it does not give an alert when flying with normal speed and
> airbrakes open.
> See my figure 5 of http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm
>
> Karel, NL
>

That seems to be exactly the opposite of what would be required by
most pilots.
There is no hazard associated with having the airbrakes unlocked when
the glider is not in motion. The hazard starts when the airspeed gets
high enough for the airbrakes to suck open if not locked.

Cambridge 302 alarms at about 25kts (not sure of exact figure) if
airbakes not locked. I hear it on about half my launches with ballast
as I use airbrakes for better roll control.


Andy

[Tony Verhulst]

> I do not post on Lathe websites, as I am not interested
> in them. Neither do I post on bird-watching websites,
> again as I am not interested. Do you see what I am
> getting at?

He reads this NG because he IS interested. Probably much more than he'll
admit to himself - let alone others.

Tomny V.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
> >
> I see you still havent got a life yet.

180 from the truth, since I stopped dumping every available dollar for
nothing in return, I am far better off, and having a ball. Unlike
many here, and I suspect you are one, my life doesn't begin and end at
the gliderport.

> When are you
> going to go gliding again?

Quick answer, I have no intention of wasting time even driving past an
airport of any kind, now or in the future.

But, look at yourself and your postings from the point of a newbie
thinking about trying the hobby. He/She might be able to just afford
a PW, and decides to look on the net to find out opinions. All he/she
is going to read is badmouth and snobbery towards the plane and the
class. He/She decides some other hobby is better.

You are not promoting anything by talking it down, you are merely
driving another nail into soarings coffin. Carry on. Attitude is
everything, attitude towards the 1-26 and the people that fly them is
why I decided that any other hobby would be far more rewarding. (And
probably in much better company.)

[Jim Vincent]

>180 from the truth, since I stopped dumping every available dollar for
>nothing in return, I am far better off, and having a ball. Unlike
>many here, and I suspect you are one, my life doesn't begin and end at
>the gliderport.

Now it goes to the local brothel???


>Attitude is
>everything, attitude towards the 1-26 and the people that fly them is
>why I decided that any other hobby would be far more rewarding.

Are you that thin skinned and reliant on the opinions of others that you cannot
stay in soaring because someone dissed you??? Pretty fricking sad.



Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ

[Going fer it]

Yep - all your points are valid Gentlemen.
This thread and its like are really quiet entertaining for getting
rabid (or should that be rapid) reaction :-)

Now the rain has stopped I think I might go flying.
Now the big question.

uuum LS4 or PW5 :-)


Ben Flewett > wrote in message >...
> At 20:24 16 March 2004, Going Fer It wrote:
> >> So, If I wanted to fly world class for 2 weeks a year
> >> I would have to buy a PW5 rather than say an ASW20
> >> and accept that I would loose out on a large amount
> >> of fun for the other 50 weeks of the year.
> >
> >Guess you havent heard of hiring huh :-)
>
>
> Here is an interesting fact - hiring a PW5 in either
> NZ or Nitra would have cost you more than renting a
> Ventus 2 for a proper World Gliding Champs.

[Eric Greenwell]

Christopher J. Wilson wrote:
>
> A glider with 1940's performance made for a single
> design competition at a y2k price that looks like the
> pw5 is destined to failure in gliding and will never
> represent 'value for money'.

Let's at least keep it real: Pilots would've killed for a PW5 in the
40's. Even the widely acclaimed (and rightly so) Standard Class champion
in the early '60s (Ka-6e) doesn't have the performance of the PW5, and
it was more costly.

I suspect for many people, "failure" means "I can't buy the new glider I
desire for half price". The people buying and flying them have a
different measure of success.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andy Durbin]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> Probably my explanation was not good enough. The airbrake microswitch and
> the switch of the pressure transducer are in series. However with no
> pressure (glider on the ground) the switch of the pressure transducer is
> closed and opens reluctantly when pressure comes on (glider rolling for take
> off). So this system gives a warning for airbrakes unlocked (or open) prior
> to take off; it does not give an alert when flying with normal speed and
> airbrakes open.
> See my figure 5 of http://home.wxs.nl/~kpt9/gear.htm
>
> Karel, NL
>

That seems to be exactly the opposite of what would be required by
most pilots.
There is no hazard associated with having the airbrakes unlocked when
the glider is not in motion. The hazard starts when the airspeed gets
high enough for the airbrakes to suck open if not locked.

Cambridge 302 alarms at about 25kts (not sure of exact figure) if
airbakes not locked. I hear it on about half my launches with ballast
as I use airbrakes for better roll control.


Andy

[Liam Finley]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> 40's. Even the widely acclaimed (and rightly so) Standard Class champion
> in the early '60s (Ka-6e) doesn't have the performance of the PW5, and
> it was more costly.
>

You might want to inform the BGA of this, as they gave the two gliders
the same handicap.

And we've seen what happens when the PW-5 and Ka6e actually compete
against each other:
http://glidingmatamata.co.nz/competition/cumulative_sports-pw5.htm

[Eric Greenwell]

Liam Finley wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>>40's. Even the widely acclaimed (and rightly so) Standard Class champion
>>in the early '60s (Ka-6e) doesn't have the performance of the PW5, and
>>it was more costly.
>>
>
>
> You might want to inform the BGA of this, as they gave the two gliders
> the same handicap.

I used the US handicaps.

> And we've seen what happens when the PW-5 and Ka6e actually compete
> against each other:
> http://glidingmatamata.co.nz/competition/cumulative_sports-pw5.htm

No, we haven't. You've seen what happens when PILOTS compete against
each other in a soaring contest. If it depended on the performance
alone, we could just send the trophies to the guys with the best
handicap after the entry deadline, and skip the flying.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Lennie the Lurker]

(Jim Vincent) wrote in message >...
>
> Now it goes to the local brothel???

Must be something in your neighborhood. But it shows the level of
your mind nicely. I've only added nine machines since I quit throwing
the money away, compared to zero during the time I was wasting time
and money on gliders.
>
> Are you that thin skinned and reliant on the opinions of others that you cannot
> stay in soaring because someone dissed you??? Pretty fricking sad.

No. I'm saying that the negative pressure towards the plane never
quits, and I didn't find it worthy of resisting. I'm a firm believer
in everyone having a right to their own opinion, but I believe even
more strongly in my right not to hear it.

But, say, $120 thrown for tow fees or the same thrown at a brothel,
the end result is the same, you're $120 poorer for it. No difference.

[Lennie the Lurker]

Tony Verhulst > wrote in message >...
>>
> He reads this NG because he IS interested.

Interested in that some of the people I once knew post here
occasionally. The only word I get from all but one if you discount
the advertising every year. What I hear from the other one, "COme,
let us fly", Sorry. Front seat ballast in a 2-33 for the rest of my
life is not what I had in mind.

Interested in that I may be asked to go back to work for a while, due
to factors beyond the control of the shop owner, and thinking I might,
but only if I do none of the aircraft work that comes in from time to
time. As sue crazy as the aviation world is, I don't want to touch
anything connected with it. If the owner goes along with it, ok. If
he doesn't, he's a one man shop.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> Jon Meyer wrote:
>
> > Are you therefore saying that the world class must
> > have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
> > as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
>
> No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.
>
> > I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
> > to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
> > very good.
>
> Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
> new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
> the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).
>

At that time the LAK-12 was still in production and met the goal:
substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders". Although
size is certainly a factor of the price, it is not the main one.

[OscarCVox]

When the PW5 was first available in the Uk another glider made by the same
manufacturer with better performance and only about 1000 pounds more was
available - the Junior. 15M, a proper looking glider, and rated by Derek Piggot
as one of the best gliders for an early solo pilot.
Why was this not considered? Because it couldnt be kit built and was 15m.

Now compare the amount of depreciation on the PW5 and the Junior. The Junior
holds its value better because it is more useable, robust, better performance
and better looking.
The PW5 has failed on one of its main criteria for the World Class- cost. Yes
it is fairly cheap to buy new, but nobody is going to be happy with 50%
depreciation over 5 years. If you compare total cost of ownership over that
period including finance costs to buy, running costs, depreciation ease of sale
etc., you will find quite a number of new gliders that are cheaper, and more
desirable.

OK sharpen your knives to disect this argument. :-)

Nigel (dont own a glider but have the choice of 12 single seaters to fly)

[Eric Greenwell]

OscarCVox wrote:

> When the PW5 was first available in the Uk another glider made by the same
> manufacturer with better performance and only about 1000 pounds more was
> available - the Junior. 15M, a proper looking glider, and rated by Derek Piggot
> as one of the best gliders for an early solo pilot.
> Why was this not considered? Because it couldnt be kit built and was 15m.


> Now compare the amount of depreciation on the PW5 and the Junior. The Junior
> holds its value better because it is more useable, robust, better performance
> and better looking.
> The PW5 has failed on one of its main criteria for the World Class- cost. Yes
> it is fairly cheap to buy new, but nobody is going to be happy with 50%
> depreciation over 5 years. If you compare total cost of ownership over that
> period including finance costs to buy, running costs, depreciation ease of sale
> etc., you will find quite a number of new gliders that are cheaper, and more
> desirable.
>
> OK sharpen your knives to disect this argument. :-)

The committees didn't have depreciation data on a PW5 in the mid-80s,
when this process was started.

There was considerable interest in the idea at the time, with 20+
initial entrants. It is easy to suggest changes after the experiment is
carried out, hard to design the next one to appeal to people who will be
in the sport 10 or 15 years from now.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>
>> Jon Meyer wrote:
>>
>> > Are you therefore saying that the world class must
>> > have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
>> > as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
>>
>> No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.
>>
>> > I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
>> > to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
>> > very good.
>>
>> Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
>> new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
>> the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).
>>
>
>At that time the LAK-12 was still in production and met the goal:
>substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders". Although
>size is certainly a factor of the price, it is not the main one.

The WC requirement that the glider have construction plans
public and open to anyone for building seemed like a good way
to ensure the manufacturer wouldn't "gouge", but this seems to
have backfired. I don't think this requirement should be
put forth in 2009. Perhaps this will encourage more entries...
Perhaps make the plans and such public and buildable by
anyone, but have no requirement that it is easy to build...
Thus allowing the Sparrowhawk and others to compete...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Chris OCallaghan]

It is one of those sad truths that the very, very few people who are
willing to stand up and do something for the good of the rest of us
will win our unending ridicule. But lets be honest, we second guessers
count for little to nothing. Teapot tempests, all of us. If you don't
like the PW-5 or the World Class, unglue your bottom from the chair in
front of the ras and go create a new World Class. Of course, you'll
find it difficult, unpleasant, and posture yourself for unending
ridicule. And you may even discover why the PW-5 was selected. But I
suppose most of us prefer to be ridiculous in spirit than ridiculed in
fact.

[Chris OCallaghan]

PS, signing off for the season... there's sky out there to sculpt.

[OscarCVox]

>If you don't
>like the PW-5 or the World Class, unglue your bottom from the chair in
>front of the ras and go create a new World Class. Of course, you'll
>find it difficult, unpleasant, and posture yourself for unending
>ridicule. And you may even discover why the PW-5 was selected. But I
>suppose most of us prefer to be ridiculous in spirit than ridiculed in
>fact.

Dont need to. The club class is doing all that the World class was supposed to
and is oversubscribed in competitions all over the world - except the USA, Why
dont you follow the same format and forget the world class as a good idea that
went wrong and embrace the club class like everybody else.

I know! It hasnt been invented by the good old usa so it cant be any good. Why
reinvent the wheel with your sport class?