Kawa rough landing?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 8:31:32 PM UTC+1, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!

As I read it from google translate the pylon didn't make contact with the upper limit switch. He hit an unseen hump on a steep uphill landing bounced, lost energy because of the uphill trajectory and dropped in tearing off the undercarriage

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!
Link?

[Mike the Strike]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 11:10:50 PM UTC+1, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!
> Link?

I only found a brief report on his Facebook page - a short description with half-a-dozen photos. My reading is that he got stuck in a long valley and deployed the motor at about 1,000m AGL, the boom deployed but the motor failed to run. He landed on what looked like the best field but found it was rougher than it looked as well as steeply uphill. After touchdown, a hump sent him airborne, but because of the uphill landing was unable to regain flying speed and it fell in from about 2 meters, breaking both wheels.

He says that all major airframe components were undamaged apart from the gear. The tone of his post sounds a bit embarrassed, but this is exactly the sort of accident that can happen to any one of us in a field landing.

Mike

[Tim Taylor]

From tvn24, translated with Google:


Glider pilot and multiple world champion Sebastian Kawa was hospitalized after an accident during a competition in Italy. - Sebastian is feeling well and left the hospital at his own request - his father Tomasz Kawa informed on TVN24. The pilot's father explained that the bad weather on the Apennine Peninsula had contributed to the accident. It is about the storms occurring there, which impede visibility during glider flight. - Storms closed Sebastian over an area where there are no landing places - he said. "It threw him into the air high over a dozen meters" - The glider has calculated emergency or accidental landings, but it was a very unfavorable system. Sebastian happily spotted a piece of grass-covered slope, but when he came in contact with the ground, and you need to land at an increased speed, about 130 kilometers per hour, he hit a kind of threshold on an aircraft carrier, threw him into the air a dozen meters high (... ) was in a vertical configuration, at an angle of about fifty degrees and hung without speed - he explained. - Luckily, this glider dropped symmetrically, but with such energy that the landing gear broke down, the hull was also damaged, the pilot was affected by the appropriate forces, but the athletic, young body somehow endured it and it's ok - he added. As Tomasz Kawa said, medical aid "had no chance" to get to the scene of the accident. The glider and pilot were downloaded by themselves, and then Kawa went to the hospital. Multiple world champion in gliding 46-year-old Sebastian Kawa is the most successful pilot in history. He has a dozen or so world championship titles, as well as, among others, two gold of the World Aviation Games and seven European championship titles. Author: mjz // kg / Source: tvn24 (http://www.tvn24.pl)

[krasw]

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:43:04 AM UTC+3, Mike the Strike wrote:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 11:10:50 PM UTC+1, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!
> > Link?
>
> I only found a brief report on his Facebook page - a short description with half-a-dozen photos. My reading is that he got stuck in a long valley and deployed the motor at about 1,000m AGL, the boom deployed but the motor failed to run. He landed on what looked like the best field but found it was rougher than it looked as well as steeply uphill. After touchdown, a hump sent him airborne, but because of the uphill landing was unable to regain flying speed and it fell in from about 2 meters, breaking both wheels.
>
> He says that all major airframe components were undamaged apart from the gear. The tone of his post sounds a bit embarrassed, but this is exactly the sort of accident that can happen to any one of us in a field landing.
>
> Mike

Seen it million times during big competitions, flying into unlandable terrain trusting you find next thermal or engine works. Of course everything is fine 99% of the time. And then bad day happens and you end up with that 1%. It shouldn't and definately doesn't happen to anyone of us, if you follow the very basic principle of all gliding flights: YOU GOT TO HAVE A PLACE TO LAND. This is hammered so hard to the brains of every flight student that it takes hundreds of flight hours to forget.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 2:03:39 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 9:43:04 AM UTC+3, Mike the Strike wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 11:10:50 PM UTC+1, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > > Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!
> > > Link?
> >
> > I only found a brief report on his Facebook page - a short description with half-a-dozen photos. My reading is that he got stuck in a long valley and deployed the motor at about 1,000m AGL, the boom deployed but the motor failed to run. He landed on what looked like the best field but found it was rougher than it looked as well as steeply uphill. After touchdown, a hump sent him airborne, but because of the uphill landing was unable to regain flying speed and it fell in from about 2 meters, breaking both wheels.
> >
> > He says that all major airframe components were undamaged apart from the gear. The tone of his post sounds a bit embarrassed, but this is exactly the sort of accident that can happen to any one of us in a field landing.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Seen it million times during big competitions, flying into unlandable terrain trusting you find next thermal or engine works. Of course everything is fine 99% of the time. And then bad day happens and you end up with that 1%. It shouldn't and definately doesn't happen to anyone of us, if you follow the very basic principle of all gliding flights: YOU GOT TO HAVE A PLACE TO LAND. This is hammered so hard to the brains of every flight student that it takes hundreds of flight hours to forget.

Mr Kawa is an awesome pilot. If he can make a mistake anyone of us can too. Maybe we should all take a few moment stand down and ask ourselves, have we attempted an engine start not over laudable terrain, have we flown into a corner with only one option that must work or else?

[Michael Opitz]

At 07:30 02 September 2019, Tim Taylor wrote:
>From tvn24, translated with Google:
>
>
>Glider pilot and multiple world champion Sebastian Kawa was
hospitalized
>af=
>ter an accident during a competition in Italy. - Sebastian is feeling
well
>=
>and left the hospital at his own request - his father Tomasz Kawa
informed
>=
>on TVN24. The pilot's father explained that the bad weather on the
>Apennine=
> Peninsula had contributed to the accident. It is about the storms
>occurrin=
>g there, which impede visibility during glider flight. - Storms closed
>Seba=
>stian over an area where there are no landing places - he said. "It
threw
>h=
>im into the air high over a dozen meters" - The glider has
calculated
>emerg=
>ency or accidental landings, but it was a very unfavorable system.
>Sebastia=
>n happily spotted a piece of grass-covered slope, but when he
came in
>conta=
>ct with the ground, and you need to land at an increased speed,
about 130
>k=
>ilometers per hour, he hit a kind of threshold on an aircraft carrier,
>thre=
>w him into the air a dozen meters high (... ) was in a vertical
>configurati=
>on, at an angle of about fifty degrees and hung without speed - he
>explaine=
>d. - Luckily, this glider dropped symmetrically, but with such
energy that
>=
>the landing gear broke down, the hull was also damaged, the pilot
was
>affec=
>ted by the appropriate forces, but the athletic, young body
somehow
>endured=
> it and it's ok - he added. As Tomasz Kawa said, medical aid "had
no
>chance=
>" to get to the scene of the accident. The glider and pilot were
>downloaded=
> by themselves, and then Kawa went to the hospital. Multiple world
>champion=
> in gliding 46-year-old Sebastian Kawa is the most successful pilot
in
>hist=
>ory. He has a dozen or so world championship titles, as well as,
among
>othe=
>rs, two gold of the World Aviation Games and seven European
championship
>ti=
>tles. Author: mjz // kg / Source: tvn24 (http://www.tvn24.pl)
>

The central mountain ridge system in Italy is tough for out landings.
The land has been handed down and subdivided among the heirs
over many generations, leaving mostly small fields available. The
ground is hard clay, and they plow it using bulldozers to pull the
plows. The clay is turned up in hard clay clumps about a foot in
diameter. When I flew in Rieti at the 1985 WGC, we had glider off
field landing carnage all over.

RO

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

krasw wrote on 9/2/2019 2:03 AM:
> Seen it million times during big competitions, flying into unlandable terrain trusting you find next thermal or engine works. Of course everything is fine 99% of the time. And then bad day happens and you end up with that 1%. It shouldn't and definately doesn't happen to anyone of us, if you follow the very basic principle of all gliding flights: YOU GOT TO HAVE A PLACE TO LAND. This is hammered so hard to the brains of every flight student that it takes hundreds of flight hours to forget.
>
I don't think we should assume he intentionally flew out reach of landable
terrain. The remarks quoted by Tim Taylor suggest the weather changed much faster
than expected, leaving him with only poor choices.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Tango Whisky]

Looking at the photo of the field, I would have accepted it as a difficult but doable option. The rest is the inherent risk of outlanding.

[krasw]

Change of weather is in my opinion no excuse to not reach landable terrain. But that's obviously just me.

[danlj]

"Storms closed Sebastian over"
This note is just to caution folks that IMC and low weather can form too swiftly to escape. I have more than once had clear air turn into cloud or fog around me -- I did not "enter" IMC. This can happen at any altitude between the surface and the tropopause.
I have seen thunderstorms go from tiny cu to flat top in just five minutes -- and dissipate in another 15.
A capping layer of stratus can move over a valley -- or can form out of clear air in a minute or two.
Aviators, in general, don't understand just how dynamic cloud formation can be.
DJ

[[email protected]]

On Monday, September 2, 2019 at 3:30:16 AM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> From tvn24, translated with Google:
>
>
> Glider pilot and multiple world champion Sebastian Kawa was hospitalized after an accident during a competition in Italy. - Sebastian is feeling well and left the hospital at his own request - his father Tomasz Kawa informed on TVN24. The pilot's father explained that the bad weather on the Apennine Peninsula had contributed to the accident. It is about the storms occurring there, which impede visibility during glider flight. - Storms closed Sebastian over an area where there are no landing places - he said. "It threw him into the air high over a dozen meters" - The glider has calculated emergency or accidental landings, but it was a very unfavorable system. Sebastian happily spotted a piece of grass-covered slope, but when he came in contact with the ground, and you need to land at an increased speed, about 130 kilometers per hour, he hit a kind of threshold on an aircraft carrier, threw him into the air a dozen meters high (... ) was in a vertical configuration, at an angle of about fifty degrees and hung without speed - he explained. - Luckily, this glider dropped symmetrically, but with such energy that the landing gear broke down, the hull was also damaged, the pilot was affected by the appropriate forces, but the athletic, young body somehow endured it and it's ok - he added. As Tomasz Kawa said, medical aid "had no chance" to get to the scene of the accident. The glider and pilot were downloaded by themselves, and then Kawa went to the hospital. Multiple world champion in gliding 46-year-old Sebastian Kawa is the most successful pilot in history. He has a dozen or so world championship titles, as well as, among others, two gold of the World Aviation Games and seven European championship titles. Author: mjz // kg / Source: tvn24 (http://www.tvn24.pl)

I had to land on an altiport in France with my Ventus 2B. My landing was hard and bent the axel and the immediate supporting struts. Fortunately, no other damage to the aircraft.
Landing uphill is more difficult than one thinks due to the visual illusion of being too high and overflying the field. I pulled full landing flaps and reduced speed as to not overfly the field. Result: never made the field proper, landed in the rough before the field. With the angle of descent being so steep and the field rising upwards, the impact was more of a collision than a forward roll. Blew the tire on impact. Fortunatedly, there was a very experienced metal worker at the field and he had me up and running in two days !

Possibly, training to land on altiports with a flight simulater is what one should do if flying such terrain with minimal outlanding possiblities.

[Tango Whisky]

Well, my experience is not that extensive - about 500 h over flat country and 3200 h in the Alps from Southern France to Austria, including very rapidly developing thunderstorms.
However, I have never experienced a situation where IMC develop too fast to escape. If such a thing happens, situational awareness hasn't been what it is supposed to be.

[[email protected]]

There is a comment from GP gliders on their facebook page that Mr Kawa hurt his back as a result of the impact (hopefully not seriously) and also that the dynafoam cushion had been removed so that he could fit into the smaller sized cockpit of the two GP glider designs. Irrespective of whether the dynafoam would have made a difference in this particular incident it is a reminder of the importance of impact protection seat cushions and raises a question about flying a glider with a cockpit so small that the cushion needs to be removed for the pilot to fit into it.

[krasw]

http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-krok-od-katastrofy/?fbclid=IwAR3som9gKCbqCHd0NQyKeMxe_o28wxNScwdrIl64 BvuclbGJ8ugxxXHZS58

Google translate:
"During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "

There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.

[[email protected]]

Always great to learn from the wisdom of the GOAT:

“Yeah, but it was a landing pad in Bobulandii. Here, unfortunately, on the lower part of the field, there was a damselfish which, at higher speed, knocked me when you make a kangaroo on a flat glider, it flies horizontally and lands twice�

😂😂😂

[Richard DalCanto]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-krok-od-katastrofy/?fbclid=IwAR3som9gKCbqCHd0NQyKeMxe_o28wxNScwdrIl64 BvuclbGJ8ugxxXHZS58
>
> Google translate:
> "During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "
>
> There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.

Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.

[2G]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-krok-od-katastrofy/?fbclid=IwAR3som9gKCbqCHd0NQyKeMxe_o28wxNScwdrIl64 BvuclbGJ8ugxxXHZS58
> >
> > Google translate:
> > "During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "
> >
> > There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.
>
> Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.

A bump or rock can break your spine - there is no such thing as a "nice looking field," just some that are less desirable than others.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 9/8/2019 10:17 PM:
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:

>> Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.
>
> A bump or rock can break your spine - there is no such thing as a "nice looking field," just some that are less desirable than others.

I'll point out the risk from a bump or rock varies with the glider you use. My
(26E) glider and your glider (31Mi) have tall, massive gears designed to provide
significant protection from bumps, rocks, and even badly botched landings on
pavement. And, not just from the height of the gear, but it's shock absorption and
progressive collapse during the collision with the bump or rock. So, I have no
fear of bumps or rocks in an off-airport landing.

I do fear ditches and boulders (basically, anything bigger than the tire), but
even then, the gear will reduce the damage I would suffer compared to my earlier
gliders that were designed before crash protection became a much higher priority.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

[2G]

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 9:03:48 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/8/2019 10:17 PM:
> > On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 6:52:44 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> >> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
>
> >> Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.
> >
> > A bump or rock can break your spine - there is no such thing as a "nice looking field," just some that are less desirable than others.
>
> I'll point out the risk from a bump or rock varies with the glider you use. My
> (26E) glider and your glider (31Mi) have tall, massive gears designed to provide
> significant protection from bumps, rocks, and even badly botched landings on
> pavement. And, not just from the height of the gear, but it's shock absorption and
> progressive collapse during the collision with the bump or rock. So, I have no
> fear of bumps or rocks in an off-airport landing.
>
> I do fear ditches and boulders (basically, anything bigger than the tire), but
> even then, the gear will reduce the damage I would suffer compared to my earlier
> gliders that were designed before crash protection became a much higher priority.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

Clearly some gliders are much better designed and built than others, but fields that you haven't walked can be a literal mine field of obstructions, particularly if the grass is higher and hides these hazards.

Tom

[krasw]

On Monday, 9 September 2019 04:52:44 UTC+3, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-krok-od-katastrofy/?fbclid=IwAR3som9gKCbqCHd0NQyKeMxe_o28wxNScwdrIl64 BvuclbGJ8ugxxXHZS58
> >
> > Google translate:
> > "During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "
> >
> > There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.
>
> Those pictures show a nice looking field. I'm sure he's landed in fields like that many times. Bumps and rocks are always a risk when landing in a field.

To my eyes it looks like a mountain slope, described unlandable (obviously, with hindsight).

Reading a lot of fb comments it's surprising how many talk about electric engine unreliability as cause. Have we not learned anything during last 30-40 years of playing with sustainers and selflauncher? Engine start down low is a PLEASANT SURPRISE, you plan for safe outlanding, always. There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and one really close call. They aren't any better.

[Peter F[_2_]]

At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
>There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
one
>really close call. They aren't any better.
>

Can you provide links to these incidents?

I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
traditional turbo.

[Tango Whisky]

Why?

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 14:45:04 UTC+3, Peter F wrote:
> At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> one
> >really close call. They aren't any better.
> >
>
> Can you provide links to these incidents?
>
> I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> traditional turbo.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/195172

Not sure if close call has been documented as incident.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> http://www.sebastiankawa.pl/13060/o-krok-od-katastrofy/?fbclid=IwAR3som9gKCbqCHd0NQyKeMxe_o28wxNScwdrIl64 BvuclbGJ8ugxxXHZS58
>
> Google translate:
> "During the last training flight they locked Sebastian in a narrow 30-kilometer valley without landing spots. The possibility of escape was to be provided by an efficient electric drive system. "
>
> There you go. Glad he did not hurt himself more seriously.

In the pics there is a lake. I know it is not everyone's first choice, but in desperate situations like this, with an electric and batteries, should the lake be avoided? Or would it have been a better choice in hindsight?

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> one
> >really close call. They aren't any better.
> >
>
> Can you provide links to these incidents?
>
> I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> traditional turbo.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > one
> > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > >
> >
> > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> >
> > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > traditional turbo.
>
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA

oh, and of course...
http://sustainableskies.org/two-battery-fires-self-launching-sailplanes/

T8

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 8:15:24 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > one
> > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > >
> > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > traditional turbo.
> >
> > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
>
> oh, and of course...
> http://sustainableskies.org/two-battery-fires-self-launching-sailplanes/
>
> T8

We are are temporary in the larger sense. Choose your risks v rewards wisely.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > one
> > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > >
> >
> > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> >
> > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > traditional turbo.
>
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA

"His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."

That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:24:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > one
> > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > >
> > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > traditional turbo.
> >
> > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
>
> "His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
> when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."
>
> That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo.. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).

Accident due to (imo) poor procedures, yes. Presuming that the pilot's story is correct on the facts, it also reflects shoddy engineering.

T8

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:24:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > one
> > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > >
> > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > traditional turbo.
> > >
> > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> >
> > "His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
> > when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."
> >
> > That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).
>
> Accident due to (imo) poor procedures, yes. Presuming that the pilot's story is correct on the facts, it also reflects shoddy engineering.
>
> T8

Presumably the "shoddy engineering" you allude to is the implication that the battery gauge was saying 20% but the electric motor refused to run. The story did not mention whether the motor was run further AFTER the 20% reading, and then shut down, before the restart attempt later. It seems unlikely to me that the motor ran OK up to the moment when it was shut down, and then some minutes later refused to start and produce significant power again, as the battery should not have run itself down in-between.

Anyway, gauging how much charge is left in a battery is notoriously difficult, especially when near-empty. I wouldn't count on a 20% battery reading any more than I would count on a 20% gas tank reading - in both cases I'd look for a safe place to land ASAP. On the first trip in the Cessna I had many years ago I landed (after dark, in scattered thunderstorms weather) with only about 10% fuel left (determined from how much fuel was then pumped into the tanks). I learned the lesson not to do that again!

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:24:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > > one
> > > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > > traditional turbo.
> > > >
> > > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> > >
> > > "His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
> > > when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."
> > >
> > > That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).
> >
> > Accident due to (imo) poor procedures, yes. Presuming that the pilot's story is correct on the facts, it also reflects shoddy engineering.
> >
> > T8
>
> Presumably the "shoddy engineering" you allude to is the implication that the battery gauge was saying 20% but the electric motor refused to run. The story did not mention whether the motor was run further AFTER the 20% reading, and then shut down, before the restart attempt later. It seems unlikely to me that the motor ran OK up to the moment when it was shut down, and then some minutes later refused to start and produce significant power again, as the battery should not have run itself down in-between.
>
> Anyway, gauging how much charge is left in a battery is notoriously difficult, especially when near-empty. I wouldn't count on a 20% battery reading any more than I would count on a 20% gas tank reading - in both cases I'd look for a safe place to land ASAP. On the first trip in the Cessna I had many years ago I landed (after dark, in scattered thunderstorms weather) with only about 10% fuel left (determined from how much fuel was then pumped into the tanks). I learned the lesson not to do that again!

The point being made (in answer to Peter's query) is: the extent technology for FES is nowhere near the pretty picture some people got in their head when first discussed, that's all.

T8

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Tango Eight wrote on 9/10/2019 12:12 PM:
> The point being made (in answer to Peter's query) is: the extent technology for FES is nowhere near the pretty picture some people got in their head when first discussed, that's all.

We know about FES failures that lead to accidents, but we don't know about all the
times the motors start without problems. It's plausible that it's starting
reliability can exceed (perhaps by a lot) ICE starting reliability.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[[email protected]]

Kawa's glider was not a FES system, but a Standard mast/electric motor system.
Dan

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 3:12:59 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 2:11:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:24:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > > > traditional turbo.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> > > >
> > > > "His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
> > > > when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."
> > > >
> > > > That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).
> > >
> > > Accident due to (imo) poor procedures, yes. Presuming that the pilot's story is correct on the facts, it also reflects shoddy engineering.
> > >
> > > T8
> >
> > Presumably the "shoddy engineering" you allude to is the implication that the battery gauge was saying 20% but the electric motor refused to run. The story did not mention whether the motor was run further AFTER the 20% reading, and then shut down, before the restart attempt later. It seems unlikely to me that the motor ran OK up to the moment when it was shut down, and then some minutes later refused to start and produce significant power again, as the battery should not have run itself down in-between.
> >
> > Anyway, gauging how much charge is left in a battery is notoriously difficult, especially when near-empty. I wouldn't count on a 20% battery reading any more than I would count on a 20% gas tank reading - in both cases I'd look for a safe place to land ASAP. On the first trip in the Cessna I had many years ago I landed (after dark, in scattered thunderstorms weather) with only about 10% fuel left (determined from how much fuel was then pumped into the tanks). I learned the lesson not to do that again!
>
> The point being made (in answer to Peter's query) is: the extent technology for FES is nowhere near the pretty picture some people got in their head when first discussed, that's all.
>
> T8

[Richard DalCanto]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > one
> > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > >
> > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > traditional turbo.
> >
> > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
>
> oh, and of course...
> http://sustainableskies.org/two-battery-fires-self-launching-sailplanes/
>
> T8

The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:11:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:41:04 PM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 1:24:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > > one
> > > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > > traditional turbo.
> > > >
> > > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> > >
> > > "His last calculation of remaining battery energy was about 20 minutes from DXR,
> > > when he noted about 20% battery life remaining. As he prepared to enter the DXR traffic pattern for landing on runway 26, he noted that the glider's altitude was low. He turned on the electric motor; however, it produced only minimal power and the glider continued to lose altitude until it impacted trees and a house 2.7 miles northeast of DXR."
> > >
> > > That one was neither a close call (alas), nor a powerplant failure. Rather an empty battery, due to prior self-launch and cruise, without securing alternatives. Analogous to running out of gasoline. It is not evidence against the claim that FES is inherently more reliable than traditional turbo. Besides the electric motor starting reliably (as long as one keeps some "fuel in the tank"), there is also no added drag like from the boom of a retractable engine (of any type).
> >
> > Accident due to (imo) poor procedures, yes. Presuming that the pilot's story is correct on the facts, it also reflects shoddy engineering.
> >
> > T8
>
> Presumably the "shoddy engineering" you allude to is the implication that the battery gauge was saying 20% but the electric motor refused to run. The story did not mention whether the motor was run further AFTER the 20% reading, and then shut down, before the restart attempt later. It seems unlikely to me that the motor ran OK up to the moment when it was shut down, and then some minutes later refused to start and produce significant power again, as the battery should not have run itself down in-between.
>
> Anyway, gauging how much charge is left in a battery is notoriously difficult, especially when near-empty. I wouldn't count on a 20% battery reading any more than I would count on a 20% gas tank reading - in both cases I'd look for a safe place to land ASAP. On the first trip in the Cessna I had many years ago I landed (after dark, in scattered thunderstorms weather) with only about 10% fuel left (determined from how much fuel was then pumped into the tanks). I learned the lesson not to do that again!

It is interesting that the pilot reported "calculating" the energy remaining, but not how the calculation was done. The Electro has a crude bargraph display of energy remaining (it has only 10 bars); why didn't he mention that? Was he assuming he had more energy remaining than the bargraph indicated? The only way to know with any certainty the energy content of a battery is to do a discharge test. This can be done very easily with an FES - you simply operate the motor at full power climb and time the operation to battery depletion. You would also need to do this in a partial thrust situation, as happened in this accident. Compare your actual results with the glider's state of charge display. Then, add a safety margin to this (20% would be reasonable).

He was very lucky to have survived this accident. He penetrated the roof near vertically, but impacted between the rafters. He climbed out of the wreckage on his own and scared the hell out of the home owner:
http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/06/alisport-silent-2-electro-n66911.html
His attitude towards the homeowner was indicative of a less than humble person, and not how you handle damage to other people's property.

Tom

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 5:36:27 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > one
> > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > >
> > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > traditional turbo.
> > >
> > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> >
> > oh, and of course...
> > http://sustainableskies.org/two-battery-fires-self-launching-sailplanes/
> >
> > T8
>
> The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed.. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?

And the manufacturers were saying what, exactly, when those fire starters were offered for sale? Were they saying "oh, we haven't really worked out all the bugs yet and these might catch fire?" No, of course not. They were wrong about their product then. You say they think they've fixed it now. Pardon me for being ever so slightly skeptical.

T8

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 6:08:48 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 5:36:27 PM UTC-4, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 9:15:24 AM UTC-6, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 11:09:12 AM UTC-4, Tango Eight wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 at 7:45:04 AM UTC-4, Peter F wrote:
> > > > > At 08:05 10 September 2019, krasw wrote:
> > > > > >There has been FES selflauncher accident because powerplant failure and
> > > > > one
> > > > > >really close call. They aren't any better.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you provide links to these incidents?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would expect them to ba at least 1 order of magnitude better than the
> > > > > traditional turbo.
> > > >
> > > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190605X04640&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=LA
> > >
> > > oh, and of course...
> > > http://sustainableskies.org/two-battery-fires-self-launching-sailplanes/
> > >
> > > T8
> >
> > The two battery fires you linked to were with old style battery packs, and from the information available from FES, the problems have been addressed. So why post this? Are you trying to scare pilots away from potentially safer electric options for some reason?
>
> And the manufacturers were saying what, exactly, when those fire starters were offered for sale? Were they saying "oh, we haven't really worked out all the bugs yet and these might catch fire?" No, of course not. They were wrong about their product then. You say they think they've fixed it now.. Pardon me for being ever so slightly skeptical.
>
> T8

Here is the unvarnished truth: if you buy a newly designed MG you are, in effect, a test pilot. These aircraft have not been thru the testing regime that certificated a/c go thru. If you are worried about this, wait 4-5 years before buying a new model. In particular, battery design is not an art that has withstood the test of time. That said, some manufacturers are more diligent than others at the design and testing process.

Tom

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 00:23 11 September 2019, 2G wrote:
>? The only way to know with any certainty the energy content of a battery
>i=
>s to do a discharge test. This can be done very easily with an FES - you

Coulumb counter should do it. Count the coulumbs in and out.

Jim

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:15:06 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> At 00:23 11 September 2019, 2G wrote:
> >? The only way to know with any certainty the energy content of a battery
> >i=
> >s to do a discharge test. This can be done very easily with an FES - you
>
> Coulumb counter should do it. Count the coulumbs in and out.
>
> Jim

A Coulomb counter counts electrons, not energy (Coulombs times voltage) - some energy is lost to internal resistance, thus the output voltage is lower.. Also some Coulombs are lost to internal self-discharge. The energy coming out is always less than the energy going in. That said, as long as the battery is behaving consistently these losses are predictable, albeit variable with time since charge, temperature, discharge rate, etc. And the prediction will be wrong once some deterioration happens inside the battery.

[2G]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:19:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 7:15:06 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
> > At 00:23 11 September 2019, 2G wrote:
> > >? The only way to know with any certainty the energy content of a battery
> > >i=
> > >s to do a discharge test. This can be done very easily with an FES - you
> >
> > Coulumb counter should do it. Count the coulumbs in and out.
> >
> > Jim
>
> A Coulomb counter counts electrons, not energy (Coulombs times voltage) - some energy is lost to internal resistance, thus the output voltage is lower. Also some Coulombs are lost to internal self-discharge. The energy coming out is always less than the energy going in. That said, as long as the battery is behaving consistently these losses are predictable, albeit variable with time since charge, temperature, discharge rate, etc. And the prediction will be wrong once some deterioration happens inside the battery.

And the device would have to be calibrated anyhow by doing a discharge test.. That said, it would be useful to have an accurate battery fuel gauge in the cockpit. I would not, however, recommend that the average glider pilot install any instrument that requires modifying high voltage/current circuitry. Doing a discharge test, on the other hand, only requires a stop watch.

Tom

[waremark]

Kawa has been a beta-tester for a novel engine installation in the GP14. It was always going to be fallible.

Reading his account, he was not complacently relying on the motor to start. He started it where he thought he had acceptable landing options, and after it failed to start he continued to fly with what he thought were acceptable landing options. He attempted to land in what he had judged to be an acceptable if difficult field, and unfortunately it turned out not to be. If as he says this was his first field landing accident after decades of cross country flying in hazardous terrain in the heat of competition he is not doing too badly.

[Delta8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCf4nilMdCw


Beer commercial translation please ?

[[email protected]]

Dear friends,

while the 3rd FAI 13.5m WGC still has only 2 days to go, I must say I totally sympathize with Sebastian Kawa's unfortunate outlanding. As part of the organizing activities, of course we provided an official TP file which includes a database of airports, airstrips and recommended outlanding fields. Compared to Rieti, where reliable outlanding fields are distributed over the whole contest area albeit here and there there are localized regions where one should avoid getting low, Pavullo and the Norther Appennines offer fewer fields, most of which are require an uphill approach. However, this is where we have hosted some Juniors' camps and national training weeks. In September 2018, a training competition "Pavullo Glide" has been completed satisfactorily.

On the given day, take-offs were delayed till after about 1.30 p.m. due to scheduled fighter-jets training activity over the airport of Pavullo. They then performed 3 low passes on the following day during the official Opening Ceremony.

As far as we know, there were no storms or heavy weather phenomena at the time of the outlanding. The assigned training task was conservative.

4 Italian members of the organization and a second Polish pilot all went to help with the retrieve. We, at the home base, were reassured that Sebastian was in good health although reporting some back pain. He then left the competition site without further contacts.

Sebastian performed a self-launch with no problems. It has been said by some of the people on the ground, and I don't know if the information is accurate, that the limit-switch failed to provide the necessary "full deployment" contact to allow engine starting. I don't know if the GP sailplane provides any bypass procedure.

The competition is going on. Italian Stefano Ghiorzo is leading with the Diana VS FES 13.5m, in second position there's German Uli Schwenk with the MiniLak and no auxiliary power system (pure glider). With two days to go, the results are still very open.

Here are 2 links to the TP database.

cheers,
Aldo Cernezzi
competition director of the 3rd FAI 13.5 WGC


https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/iii-fai-135-m-world-gliding-championship-pavullo-2019/downloads

http://soaringweb.org/TP/Pavullo

[Charlie Quebec]

The airfield I learned to fly at had a significant slope on one approach, the trick was to touch down just before the slope, on the close to level ground.
On several occasions whilst training, I touched down on the slope, it was tricky to handle, but will stand me in good stead should the situation arise.
As with all potential emergencies, one should try and predict them, and have a plan to deal with such an ocourance.
Even fields that look fine from the air can have a significant slope that is difficult to pick from the air.

[[email protected]]

It sure gets tiring listening to all the second guessing and after the fact 20/20 hindsight. The fact is **** happens to all of us irreguardless of general experience level. The experience that really counts is the experience directly related to the type of accident. In this case it is experience at off airport landings.

I would venture to guess that the great majority of guys flying higher performance modern machines (including some of the top ranked pulots) have very little if any experience with setting them down on marginal fields. The skill levels in off field landings are not there anymore simply because it is a realitively rare occurance these days with the higher performance birds and the different flying/contest mentality that exists today.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:53:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> ...The skill levels in off field landings are not there anymore simply
> because it is a realitively rare occurance these days with the higher
> performance birds and the different flying/contest mentality that exists
> today.

That is incorrect for non-USA competition flying, where tasks and
scoring mean frequent outlandings. Check out the recent world Juniors
for example...

[krasw]

As long as accidents are classified as "bad luck, **** happens" category, we will have more of them. Things you read here are just text book psychological models of people finding them self "out of luck".

[[email protected]]

Krasw I guess you miss the main point of the posts. The point is.... if you want to get good at any particular aviation skill you have to practice it alot. Talk all you want, it is no excuse for specific experience.

Case in point, all the stall spin accidents that continue to happen. We have discused, analysed, surmised, engineered, and dogmatized that topic to death. But it still is the number one killer. Why? I believe its because very very very few pilots have taken tbeir bird up at altitude and practiced practiced practiced. Not incipid entry alone but that, AND full rotation, practice and experience again and again till recognition and recovery becomes automatic.
Off field landings are bo different. Even with all that said and tons of practice **** does happen. Maybe not for the guy who never does more than float around at tge top of a thermal venturing only gliding distance from home field. But for the guy who is trying to stretch and do something, if he does enough, hes gonna get bit once in awhile. That includes Kawa, or Moffat, or any one.

Talking is great and necessary, but doing is a whole lit more essential.

[BobW]

On 9/17/2019 10:00 AM, wrote:
> ...I guess you miss the main point of the posts. The point is.... if
> you want to get good at any particular aviation skill you have to practice
> it a lot. Talk all you want, it is no excuse [substitute? editorial
> insertion] for specific experience.
>
> Case in point, all the stall spin accidents that continue to happen. We
> have discussed, analysed, surmised, engineered, and dogmatized that topic
> to death. But it still is the number one killer. Why? I believe its
> because very very very few pilots have taken their bird up at altitude and
> practiced practiced practiced. Not incipient entry alone, but that, AND full
> rotation, practice and experience again and again till recognition and
> recovery becomes automatic. Off field landings are no different. Even with
> all that said and tons of practice **** does happen. Maybe not for the guy
> who never does more than float around at the top of a thermal venturing
> only gliding distance from home field. But for the guy who is trying to
> stretch and do something, if he does enough, he's gonna get bit once in
> awhile. That includes Kawa, or Moffat, or any one.
>
> Talking is great and necessary, but doing is a whole lot more essential.

Apologies if we're not quite beyond RAS' Official "Thread Drift Now OK"
thread-timing mark. :)

I'm gonna "second" the "practice practice practice" sentiment...as a worthy
thing to do, *regardless* of one's overall/general experience level, and
without knowing Mr. Kawa's specifics (which I assume are well beyond the Joe
SixPack Glider Pilot average).

I saw the results of a(n admittedly) botched approach/touchdown-attempt in a
Phoebus to a shortish, uphill field, soon after cutting the XC cord
myself...and quickly came to the conclusion I was glad I had the learning
experience from someone else's (non-physical-injury)
misfortune/mis-judgements. He got off light...just "the usual cracked Phoebus
wood gear-attach-bulkhead." No less importantly, he learned the requisite
lessons and was happy to share them with fellow club members. The error which
led to the dropped-in-from-"several-feet" arrival crunch ultimately was
running out of airspeed due in no small part to the optical illusion induced
by rounding out too high (becuzza the "higher than normal" distant horizon
against which the roundout height was judged...since that's what normal
landings benefit from) with insufficient energy to "wait for the ground to
arrive under the tire." To the pilot's serious credit, he figured out what
he'd done wrong before more experienced wisdom was made available to him...

Sh*t does happen, and - arguably - is more likely to on off-field landings,
but cold-blooded review of real-world accidents lead *me* to conclude (even
before I got my license) that the vast majority of crunches have direct Joe
Gliderpilot active contribution(s). So far as I'm concerned (46+ years of data
later), I've never been inclined to change that opinion.

Practice as if you may need the skills/reaction(s)...because some day you may...

YMMV,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 9/17/2019 10:00 AM, wrote:
> > ...I guess you miss the main point of the posts. The point is.... if
> > you want to get good at any particular aviation skill you have to practice
> > it a lot. Talk all you want, it is no excuse [substitute? editorial
> > insertion] for specific experience.
> >
> > Case in point, all the stall spin accidents that continue to happen. We
> > have discussed, analysed, surmised, engineered, and dogmatized that topic
> > to death. But it still is the number one killer. Why? I believe its
> > because very very very few pilots have taken their bird up at altitude and
> > practiced practiced practiced. Not incipient entry alone, but that, AND full
> > rotation, practice and experience again and again till recognition and
> > recovery becomes automatic. Off field landings are no different. Even with
> > all that said and tons of practice **** does happen. Maybe not for the guy
> > who never does more than float around at the top of a thermal venturing
> > only gliding distance from home field. But for the guy who is trying to
> > stretch and do something, if he does enough, he's gonna get bit once in
> > awhile. That includes Kawa, or Moffat, or any one.
> >
> > Talking is great and necessary, but doing is a whole lot more essential..
>
> Apologies if we're not quite beyond RAS' Official "Thread Drift Now OK"
> thread-timing mark. :)
>
> I'm gonna "second" the "practice practice practice" sentiment...as a worthy
> thing to do, *regardless* of one's overall/general experience level, and
> without knowing Mr. Kawa's specifics (which I assume are well beyond the Joe
> SixPack Glider Pilot average).
>
> I saw the results of a(n admittedly) botched approach/touchdown-attempt in a
> Phoebus to a shortish, uphill field, soon after cutting the XC cord
> myself...and quickly came to the conclusion I was glad I had the learning
> experience from someone else's (non-physical-injury)
> misfortune/mis-judgements. He got off light...just "the usual cracked Phoebus
> wood gear-attach-bulkhead." No less importantly, he learned the requisite
> lessons and was happy to share them with fellow club members. The error which
> led to the dropped-in-from-"several-feet" arrival crunch ultimately was
> running out of airspeed due in no small part to the optical illusion induced
> by rounding out too high (becuzza the "higher than normal" distant horizon
> against which the roundout height was judged...since that's what normal
> landings benefit from) with insufficient energy to "wait for the ground to
> arrive under the tire." To the pilot's serious credit, he figured out what
> he'd done wrong before more experienced wisdom was made available to him....
>
> Sh*t does happen, and - arguably - is more likely to on off-field landings,
> but cold-blooded review of real-world accidents lead *me* to conclude (even
> before I got my license) that the vast majority of crunches have direct Joe
> Gliderpilot active contribution(s). So far as I'm concerned (46+ years of data
> later), I've never been inclined to change that opinion.
>
> Practice as if you may need the skills/reaction(s)...because some day you may...
>
> YMMV,
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.

No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.

Tom

[[email protected]]

"The only solution is prevention..." this is the same philosophy the faa has used in eliminating spin demonstration from private licensing and imop has led to a marked degredation in pilot awareness and skill., The very fact that a pilot becomes disoriented in the early stages of a spin or becomes uncomfortable when pitched into a steep bank is the very reason one needs to experience it again and again at altitude. The very act of physically experiencing the sensations both real and percieved during spin approach and entry become THE essential tool in survival.

As for outlandings, multiple experiences create a memory resevoir of knowledge in making very fast decisions and corrections which turn what could be a glider damaging landing into one that just raised the pucker factor a little bit.
Its the very fact that we rarely experience spin and rarely experience outlandings and can't handle them when they are thrust on us that is a large factor in the many fatal accidents we see today.

[[email protected]]

As a corrolary to my post above let me toot my own horn and poss a few questions to you.

I have spun my ship more than 30 times, and probable done 1,000 incipent spin entries. I have practiced flying my bird on the very ragged edge of stall in every imaginable condition, weak weather, booming 10k gusty thermal condx, gusty wind condx etc. I have made a point to know every nuance of my bird so when thrust into an abnormal condition, my reactions can be automatic without needing the precious seconds to try and figure out what just happened. Can you say that about your bird? If so that great and that is what every xc glider guider needs to work toward.

In off field landings I can come over a 50 ft obstacle and have her stopped within 300ft in no wind condx, much less with a head wind. I have landed in fields, parking lots and baseball diamonds and have'nt given those landing a second thought. They were no big deal due to having spent literally thiusands of dollars on pattern tows practicing every concievable approach I could dream up of encountering. When is the last time anyone on this group has paid for about 10 pattern tows and practiced the skills needed when the time arrives? I do that every spring just to get tuned up. I'm not talking about pretty box patterns and long smooth touchdowns, but I practice very steep full spoiler/full slip approaches with the very minimum of energy in order to get into a postage stamp. Can you? If so thats great, but I dare say very few on here come anywhere near to trully knowing their ships and what they are and are not capable of.

[BG[_4_]]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:16:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> As a corrolary to my post above let me toot my own horn and poss a few questions to you.
>
> I have spun my ship more than 30 times, and probable done 1,000 incipent spin entries. I have practiced flying my bird on the very ragged edge of stall in every imaginable condition, weak weather, booming 10k gusty thermal condx, gusty wind condx etc. I have made a point to know every nuance of my bird so when thrust into an abnormal condition, my reactions can be automatic without needing the precious seconds to try and figure out what just happened. Can you say that about your bird? If so that great and that is what every xc glider guider needs to work toward.
>
> In off field landings I can come over a 50 ft obstacle and have her stopped within 300ft in no wind condx, much less with a head wind. I have landed in fields, parking lots and baseball diamonds and have'nt given those landing a second thought. They were no big deal due to having spent literally thiusands of dollars on pattern tows practicing every concievable approach I could dream up of encountering. When is the last time anyone on this group has paid for about 10 pattern tows and practiced the skills needed when the time arrives? I do that every spring just to get tuned up. I'm not talking about pretty box patterns and long smooth touchdowns, but I practice very steep full spoiler/full slip approaches with the very minimum of energy in order to get into a postage stamp. Can you? If so thats great, but I dare say very few on here come anywhere near to truly knowing their ships and what they are and are not capable of.

Any time someone lands their motor glider with engine extended has to ask questions about what happen. No one would ever deliberately choose to land with a extended engine and expect the best outcome. It is like flying with full spoilers with no ability to change things, you are in uncharted territory. The right thing would have been to start the relight at a higher altitude, then it it does not work, retract the engine and fly a more controllable aircraft into the best options available. The fact the engine was still out tells a story about pilot errors and understanding.

BG

[BobW]

On 9/17/2019 6:45 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 3:55:37 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
>> On 9/17/2019 10:00 AM, wrote:
>>> ...I guess you miss the main point of the posts. The point is.... if
>>> you want to get good at any particular aviation skill you have to
>>> practice it a lot. Talk all you want, it is no excuse [substitute?
>>> editorial insertion] for specific experience.
>>>
>>> Case in point, all the stall spin accidents that continue to happen.
>>> We have discussed, analysed, surmised, engineered, and dogmatized that
>>> topic to death. But it still is the number one killer. Why? I believe
>>> its because very very very few pilots have taken their bird up at
>>> altitude and practiced practiced practiced. Not incipient entry alone,
>>> but that, AND full rotation, practice and experience again and again
>>> till recognition and recovery becomes automatic. Off field landings are
>>> no different. Even with all that said and tons of practice **** does
>>> happen. Maybe not for the guy who never does more than float around at
>>> the top of a thermal venturing only gliding distance from home field.
>>> But for the guy who is trying to stretch and do something, if he does
>>> enough, he's gonna get bit once in awhile. That includes Kawa, or
>>> Moffat, or any one.
>>>
>>> Talking is great and necessary, but doing is a whole lot more
>>> essential.
>>
>> Apologies if we're not quite beyond RAS' Official "Thread Drift Now OK"
>> thread-timing mark. :)
>>
>> I'm gonna "second" the "practice practice practice" sentiment...as a
>> worthy thing to do, *regardless* of one's overall/general experience
>> level, and without knowing Mr. Kawa's specifics (which I assume are well
>> beyond the Joe SixPack Glider Pilot average).
>>
>> I saw the results of a(n admittedly) botched approach/touchdown-attempt
>> in a Phoebus to a shortish, uphill field, soon after cutting the XC cord
>> myself...and quickly came to the conclusion I was glad I had the
>> learning experience from someone else's (non-physical-injury)
>> misfortune/mis-judgements. He got off light...just "the usual cracked
>> Phoebus wood gear-attach-bulkhead." No less importantly, he learned the
>> requisite lessons and was happy to share them with fellow club members.
>> The error which led to the dropped-in-from-"several-feet" arrival crunch
>> ultimately was running out of airspeed due in no small part to the
>> optical illusion induced by rounding out too high (becuzza the "higher
>> than normal" distant horizon against which the roundout height was
>> judged...since that's what normal landings benefit from) with
>> insufficient energy to "wait for the ground to arrive under the tire." To
>> the pilot's serious credit, he figured out what he'd done wrong before
>> more experienced wisdom was made available to him...
>>
>> Sh*t does happen, and - arguably - is more likely to on off-field
>> landings, but cold-blooded review of real-world accidents lead *me* to
>> conclude (even before I got my license) that the vast majority of
>> crunches have direct Joe Gliderpilot active contribution(s). So far as
>> I'm concerned (46+ years of data later), I've never been inclined to
>> change that opinion.
>>
>> Practice as if you may need the skills/reaction(s)...because some day you
>> may...
>>
>> YMMV, Bob W.
>>
>
> It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which
> is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if
> a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low
> altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the
> rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
>
> No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field
> with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you
> push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised
> when things turn out badly.
>
> Tom
>

Hmmm...

I certainly have no quibble with your 2nd paragraph.

But at the risk of descending toward tautology, careful reading of the clip I
seconded doesn't suggest (to me, anyway) the poster was suggesting anyone
practice spin entries/recovery from low altitude; I inferred the poster's
intention was *full* spin practice occur at a safe altitude, so that Joe
Glider Pilot's "mental reflexes" (and by implication, physical responses) move
away from "Holy crap...!" and toward, "Just another 'typical' spin entry and
normal rotation...and I can do what I know needs to be done whenever I darn
well please, and, in a timely manner!" ('Typical' is in quotes because I'm of
the opinion that spins are sufficiently complex aerodynamic phenomena that to
complacently assume they will 'always be normal' is a level of complacency
beyond me...and, I've practiced what I preach.)

Practice - physical, where safely possible, and definitely mental (e.g. how
best to handle safely touching down on an upsloping off-field landing) - is a
good thing, IMO, for every practitioner of the soaring arts.

As always, YMMV.
Bob W.

P.S. Just for the record, one of the things for which I consider practice
entirely unhelpful and unnecessary is bleeding. Another is pattern-height
departures. And below VMC engine-outs in a light twin taking off from a short
field. Ideally, every pilot has such a list. :-)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

Well said Bob

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

BG wrote on 9/17/2019 8:17 PM:
> Any time someone lands their motor glider with engine extended has to ask questions about what happen. No one would ever deliberately choose to land with a extended engine and expect the best outcome. It is like flying with full spoilers with no ability to change things, you are in uncharted territory. The right thing would have been to start the relight at a higher altitude, then it it does not work, retract the engine and fly a more controllable aircraft into the best options available. The fact the engine was still out tells a story about pilot errors and understanding.


I beg to differ...The rate of sink from an extended mast depends very much on the
glider. For example, my ASH26E lands easily with the mast extended, and it's
definitely NOT like flying with full spoilers. I've tried it a couple times, and
it was such a non-event, I decided it was pointless to practice anymore.

Generally, a pilot will land with the mast extended because it will not retract,
or because he is too busy landing to retract it. Of course, it will not glide as
far with the mast extended, so I don't begin a restart until I am within a mast-up
gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
failed start.

Want to know more about flying a self-launching sailplane? Get the "A Guide to
Self-Launching Sailplane Operation", where all this and much more is covered.

https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:49:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> BG wrote on 9/17/2019 8:17 PM:
> > Any time someone lands their motor glider with engine extended has to ask questions about what happen. No one would ever deliberately choose to land with a extended engine and expect the best outcome. It is like flying with full spoilers with no ability to change things, you are in uncharted territory. The right thing would have been to start the relight at a higher altitude, then it it does not work, retract the engine and fly a more controllable aircraft into the best options available. The fact the engine was still out tells a story about pilot errors and understanding.
>
>
> I beg to differ...The rate of sink from an extended mast depends very much on the
> glider. For example, my ASH26E lands easily with the mast extended, and it's
> definitely NOT like flying with full spoilers. I've tried it a couple times, and
> it was such a non-event, I decided it was pointless to practice anymore.
>
> Generally, a pilot will land with the mast extended because it will not retract,
> or because he is too busy landing to retract it. Of course, it will not glide as
> far with the mast extended, so I don't begin a restart until I am within a mast-up
> gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
> failed start.
>
> Want to know more about flying a self-launching sailplane? Get the "A Guide to
> Self-Launching Sailplane Operation", where all this and much more is covered.
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)

"...so I don't begin a restart until I am within a mast-up
gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
failed start. " Just to highlight the salient point

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Jonathan St. Cloud wrote on 9/18/2019 5:20 AM:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 8:49:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> BG wrote on 9/17/2019 8:17 PM:
>>> Any time someone lands their motor glider with engine extended has to ask questions about what happen. No one would ever deliberately choose to land with a extended engine and expect the best outcome. It is like flying with full spoilers with no ability to change things, you are in uncharted territory. The right thing would have been to start the relight at a higher altitude, then it it does not work, retract the engine and fly a more controllable aircraft into the best options available. The fact the engine was still out tells a story about pilot errors and understanding.
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ...The rate of sink from an extended mast depends very much on the
>> glider. For example, my ASH26E lands easily with the mast extended, and it's
>> definitely NOT like flying with full spoilers. I've tried it a couple times, and
>> it was such a non-event, I decided it was pointless to practice anymore.
>>
>> Generally, a pilot will land with the mast extended because it will not retract,
>> or because he is too busy landing to retract it. Of course, it will not glide as
>> far with the mast extended, so I don't begin a restart until I am within a mast-up
>> gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
>> failed start.
>>
>> Want to know more about flying a self-launching sailplane? Get the "A Guide to
>> Self-Launching Sailplane Operation", where all this and much more is covered.
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
>
> "...so I don't begin a restart until I am within a mast-up
> gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
> failed start. " Just to highlight the salient point

Not really the point I tried to make, which is many motorgliders do not "plummet"
or become less controllable because the mast is up, so you don't have to fear a
landing in that configuration. If you are flying a normal pattern, you just use
less spoiler, or turn base a bit earlier. The situation where the reduced mast-up
glide distance is an issue is a high restart many miles from your chosen landing
place. It's just one more factor in your arrival height calculation, along with
wind, wing loading, and bugs.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07:32 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> ...is many motorgliders do not "plummet" or become less controllable
> because the mast is up

And, many DO plummet, with reduced control authority.
It is highly dependent on what kind of glider!
Don't assume...

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Don't begin a restart until you are within a mast-up
gliding distance of a good landing place - just in case it doesn't retract after a
failed start. Good advice. I have owned an ASW24E, ASH26E, Nimbus 4T ... It was explained to my during my motor glider glider sign-off. Never ever extend and attempt a start unless you are within gliding distance of a landing place. "To do so otherwise can make you look like a real asshole." I have had a land out where I got to the landing area too low for safe start.. The engine is a convienience that might work, not a death sentence, treat it as such.

[[email protected]]

In Kawa's case it looks like the prop was feathered back so he had much less drag than some of us have to deal with but regardless, I agree with others, starting a retractable propulsion system over some unknown landing location can lead to anything from minor scratches to broken glider and injured pilot. NTSB accident query here in the States lists several such cases where the engine did not work. In some cases it appears the pilot became distracted by the engine failure and either crashed into trees or cartwheeled the aircraft. So the other important thing here is to fly the airplane ..and not a bad thing to say out loud.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote on 9/18/2019 7:43 AM:
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07:32 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> ...is many motorgliders do not "plummet" or become less controllable
>> because the mast is up
>
> And, many DO plummet, with reduced control authority.
> It is highly dependent on what kind of glider!
> Don't assume...

That's why I recommend owners try at least one airport landing with the mast up,
and engine stopped, so they know what to expect if it happens to them. The 26E,
with the gear out and mast up, reminds me of landing a Blanik.

I've never had anyone flying the usual PIK, DG, ASH, and Ventus self-launchers
mention plummeting or reduced control authority to me, but I'm sure there must be
some like that. What gliders have this plummet/control authority problem, and how
bad is the plummet (same as half spoiler, full spoiler, etc), and reduction in
control?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
,

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 1:31:32 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!

Kawa's translated words on FB today.

"Unfortunately, the mountain landing in pavullo would have me at least three months. Initially Invisible, but ultimately thanks to ortho in bygone accompanied spine fracture is an important thing.
Fortunately, I can tell you about it and share my observations and warn others."

He then goes on and shares his thoughts. The good news is he will recover in a short time. Some haven't been as fortunate.

Best. Tom #711.

[2G]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 6:59:59 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> "The only solution is prevention..." this is the same philosophy the faa has used in eliminating spin demonstration from private licensing and imop has led to a marked degredation in pilot awareness and skill., The very fact that a pilot becomes disoriented in the early stages of a spin or becomes uncomfortable when pitched into a steep bank is the very reason one needs to experience it again and again at altitude. The very act of physically experiencing the sensations both real and percieved during spin approach and entry become THE essential tool in survival.
>
> As for outlandings, multiple experiences create a memory resevoir of knowledge in making very fast decisions and corrections which turn what could be a glider damaging landing into one that just raised the pucker factor a little bit.
> Its the very fact that we rarely experience spin and rarely experience outlandings and can't handle them when they are thrust on us that is a large factor in the many fatal accidents we see today.

My comment clearly referred to spins in the pattern, not spin recovery at altitude, which still must be taught and practiced. A friend of mine killed himself when he spun in while faced with his first off-airport landing. He had recently completed all of the required glider training, which included spin recovery. But when you well under 1,000 ft AGL the prospects of a successful recovery are dim, at best. It is FAR BETTER to fly coordinated while in the pattern, with an appropriate speed margin, than to try to recover from an unusual attitude at very low altitude. Surely you must agree with this.

Tom

[2G]

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 7:43:22 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07:32 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > ...is many motorgliders do not "plummet" or become less controllable
> > because the mast is up
>
> And, many DO plummet, with reduced control authority.
> It is highly dependent on what kind of glider!
> Don't assume...

Which gliders are you talking about, or is it just a general smear against motorgliders? I have flown three different MGs (DG400, ASH26e and ASH31Mi) and none of them "plummet" or become less controllable with the mast up. The DG400 had a barely noticeable slower roll rate because the engine is on the mast, increasing its moment of inertia slightly. Note that we fly in this configuration routinely because the engine must be shut down on every flight in order to retract the prop.

Tom

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Maybe this qualifies as prevention rather than recovery but I practice spins all the time - particularly spin entries (all at altitude of course). If you know how your glider behaves when it departs, can recognize a departure quickly and act promptly I've found it's possible to recover in 1/4 turn or so. Obviously that can vary by glider type and configuration. Even 1/4 turn is too much altitude loss at 150' AGL but maybe not at 350'. A surprise departure is likely to take longer to recognize and respond to than practice but longer still without any practice.

In any case I'd rather have some practice at it than not.

Similarly, I think landing where you are rapidly bleeding energy such as on an uphill field is a good skill and you can work your way up to a reasonable simulation by landing on the flat with increasing deployment of flaps and spoilers - all the way up to full if you're comfortable. Kawa's description of his landing seemed less about obstacles than rapid bleeding of speed before and following a bounce. Hitting a hidden obstacle truly is a "Fate is the Hunter" moment and an inherent hazard of committing to field landings if they aren't cultivated. I've only landed on a steep uphill once and it definitely is something that you could do better with practice.

Here again, I'd rather have some practice at it than not. Every landing is an opportunity to practice something before you have to do it under pressure.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>
> It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
>
> No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.
>
> Tom

[2G]

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:03:08 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Maybe this qualifies as prevention rather than recovery but I practice spins all the time - particularly spin entries (all at altitude of course). If you know how your glider behaves when it departs, can recognize a departure quickly and act promptly I've found it's possible to recover in 1/4 turn or so. Obviously that can vary by glider type and configuration. Even 1/4 turn is too much altitude loss at 150' AGL but maybe not at 350'. A surprise departure is likely to take longer to recognize and respond to than practice but longer still without any practice.
>
> In any case I'd rather have some practice at it than not.
>
> Similarly, I think landing where you are rapidly bleeding energy such as on an uphill field is a good skill and you can work your way up to a reasonable simulation by landing on the flat with increasing deployment of flaps and spoilers - all the way up to full if you're comfortable. Kawa's description of his landing seemed less about obstacles than rapid bleeding of speed before and following a bounce. Hitting a hidden obstacle truly is a "Fate is the Hunter" moment and an inherent hazard of committing to field landings if they aren't cultivated. I've only landed on a steep uphill once and it definitely is something that you could do better with practice.
>
> Here again, I'd rather have some practice at it than not. Every landing is an opportunity to practice something before you have to do it under pressure.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >
> > It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
> >
> > No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.
> >
> > Tom

Andy,

When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?

Tom


Tom

[[email protected]]

Tom you just dont get it. NASA, and the military both learned DECADES ago that their pilots need to be exposed to as many and as real as can be safely created, the exact sensations of an event.

Why? To give the pilot the experience of that event. Why? To sensitise the pilot to what that event will be like, and to help create the proper response, and to get that proper response instantaneously.

Yes, a guy entering a spin at 100ft agl is in **** creek, but as Andy says, at 350ft, he has a chance of survival IF he instantaneously acts and acts correctly. Not to mention inadvertently entering a spin in a gaggle and endangering others.

Secondly, its the instantaneous RECOGNITION of whats happening and intantaneous preemptive corrective action that saves a guy, NOT the "suppossed" "coordinated flight". THAT IS THE DIRTY JOKE THATS BEEN KiLLING GUYS FOR YEARS ! How many guys over the years have flown COORDINATED right into a stall/spin? ! ! ! I dare say most guys entering a spin don't realise their entering one till its already way late. Their first response is not..."spin spin stick forward!". No, their first and wrong response is ...."oh **** ...whats that?....." One can also crab or slip all the way thru a pattern and NEVER be in any danger of a spin. Jeeesus 2G you ever heard of a slip dude? We teach this **** and many of us depend on it daily. Guys like you would call a slip an "uncoordinated" manouver, "ohh **** the yaw string is way over!!!" This is the crap that many times gets subconciously passed on to our students who don't delve into the intricacies like us who are flight fanatics do. They falsely concentrate in the string and not the energy. You just inadvertantly "instructed" your student into a fatality!

It's situational awareness of energy management and angle of attack that matters, not the continual bull**** of so called coordinated flight.

Should we teach and practice proper coordinated flight? Of course. But we need to go and practice way way beyond that mantra and safely expose ourselves and our students to situational awareness of whats going, how to intantly recognise it and not be afraid of what their bird is doing, and how it reacts.

Like Andy and others have stated, safe actual practice and simulation of each possible flight situation is what is needed. With the rash of fatal accidents this year I think this fact needs to be pressed hard. Guys get high performance birds and NEVER trully explore their idiocyncracies before venturing off, putting their trust in technology (L/D and engines) and forget the "pilotage" part. Its the pilotage that keeps us alive!

[[email protected]]

2g to answer your question, I can recover from a 1/2 turn spin within 150ft but my response has to be instinctive and instantaneous, which it has gotten thru lots of practice.
You never answered my querry, when is the last time you practiced spins, spin entry, and recovery? Do you intimately know the subtleties of your birds behavior when super slow? Whens the last time you've taken 10 pattern tows and seen how steep you can approach a landing spot and stop short? Do you know how short you can stop? Do you practice very very minimum energy landings to be able to fly the ragged edges of control when you really need to?

These are things every xc pilot should do yearly and definitely when in a new bird.

[[email protected]]

To paraphrase advice from Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder: if *anything* surprising ever happens in a turn immediately unload (i.e aerodynamically) the wing.

IMO it should be ingrained in every pilot's mind that the instant he is surprised during a turn the he should move the stick forward - only after that should he analyse the situation.

[[email protected]]

Well said jpg. I forgot that wolfgang quote. Thats more of a lifesaver than any "fly coordinated" mantra. Thanks
Dan

[Tango Whisky]

I saw a pilot entering a spin with an ASW20 after an aborted winch launch at 250 ft AGL. Did a full turn before recovery, levelling out and land. Walked away, not a single scratch on the glider.

Speedy and muscle-trained recovery gives you a chance to survive errors. And people do make errors.

[Dan Marotta]

What you say is true, Tom, but not everyone flies fully coordinated at
all times.Â* Being able to recognize the onset of a departure from
controlled flight and taking quick, appropriate action might save a life.

I know what a spin entry feels like as well as a fully developed spin,
and I know how to recover from them.Â* And I try to fly coordinated but
some times it's useful not to, e.g., slipping to reduce altitude, or
skidding slightly in a long winged glider in the final turn to keep that
inside wing developing the same lift as the outside wing.

On 9/18/2019 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:03:08 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> Maybe this qualifies as prevention rather than recovery but I practice spins all the time - particularly spin entries (all at altitude of course). If you know how your glider behaves when it departs, can recognize a departure quickly and act promptly I've found it's possible to recover in 1/4 turn or so. Obviously that can vary by glider type and configuration. Even 1/4 turn is too much altitude loss at 150' AGL but maybe not at 350'. A surprise departure is likely to take longer to recognize and respond to than practice but longer still without any practice.
>>
>> In any case I'd rather have some practice at it than not.
>>
>> Similarly, I think landing where you are rapidly bleeding energy such as on an uphill field is a good skill and you can work your way up to a reasonable simulation by landing on the flat with increasing deployment of flaps and spoilers - all the way up to full if you're comfortable. Kawa's description of his landing seemed less about obstacles than rapid bleeding of speed before and following a bounce. Hitting a hidden obstacle truly is a "Fate is the Hunter" moment and an inherent hazard of committing to field landings if they aren't cultivated. I've only landed on a steep uphill once and it definitely is something that you could do better with practice.
>>
>> Here again, I'd rather have some practice at it than not. Every landing is an opportunity to practice something before you have to do it under pressure.
>>
>> Andy Blackburn
>> 9B
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>>> It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
>>>
>>> No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.
>>>
>>> Tom
> Andy,
>
> When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
>
> Tom
>
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I'll bet he walked directly to the nearest toilet! :-D

On 9/19/2019 7:03 AM, Tango Whisky wrote:
> I saw a pilot entering a spin with an ASW20 after an aborted winch launch at 250 ft AGL. Did a full turn before recovery, levelling out and land. Walked away, not a single scratch on the glider.
>
> Speedy and muscle-trained recovery gives you a chance to survive errors. And people do make errors.

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:30:33 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What you say is true, Tom, but not everyone flies fully coordinated at
> all times.Â* Being able to recognize the onset of a departure from
> controlled flight and taking quick, appropriate action might save a life.
>
> I know what a spin entry feels like as well as a fully developed spin,
> and I know how to recover from them.Â* And I try to fly coordinated but
> some times it's useful not to, e.g., slipping to reduce altitude, or
> skidding slightly in a long winged glider in the final turn to keep that
> inside wing developing the same lift as the outside wing.
>
> On 9/18/2019 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:03:08 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >> Maybe this qualifies as prevention rather than recovery but I practice spins all the time - particularly spin entries (all at altitude of course).. If you know how your glider behaves when it departs, can recognize a departure quickly and act promptly I've found it's possible to recover in 1/4 turn or so. Obviously that can vary by glider type and configuration. Even 1/4 turn is too much altitude loss at 150' AGL but maybe not at 350'. A surprise departure is likely to take longer to recognize and respond to than practice but longer still without any practice.
> >>
> >> In any case I'd rather have some practice at it than not.
> >>
> >> Similarly, I think landing where you are rapidly bleeding energy such as on an uphill field is a good skill and you can work your way up to a reasonable simulation by landing on the flat with increasing deployment of flaps and spoilers - all the way up to full if you're comfortable. Kawa's description of his landing seemed less about obstacles than rapid bleeding of speed before and following a bounce. Hitting a hidden obstacle truly is a "Fate is the Hunter" moment and an inherent hazard of committing to field landings if they aren't cultivated. I've only landed on a steep uphill once and it definitely is something that you could do better with practice.
> >>
> >> Here again, I'd rather have some practice at it than not. Every landing is an opportunity to practice something before you have to do it under pressure.
> >>
> >> Andy Blackburn
> >> 9B
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >>> It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
> >>>
> >>> No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> > Andy,
> >
> > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > Tom
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this.

Tom

[2G]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:30:33 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What you say is true, Tom, but not everyone flies fully coordinated at
> all times.Â* Being able to recognize the onset of a departure from
> controlled flight and taking quick, appropriate action might save a life.
>
> I know what a spin entry feels like as well as a fully developed spin,
> and I know how to recover from them.Â* And I try to fly coordinated but
> some times it's useful not to, e.g., slipping to reduce altitude, or
> skidding slightly in a long winged glider in the final turn to keep that
> inside wing developing the same lift as the outside wing.
>
> On 9/18/2019 11:59 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:03:08 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >> Maybe this qualifies as prevention rather than recovery but I practice spins all the time - particularly spin entries (all at altitude of course).. If you know how your glider behaves when it departs, can recognize a departure quickly and act promptly I've found it's possible to recover in 1/4 turn or so. Obviously that can vary by glider type and configuration. Even 1/4 turn is too much altitude loss at 150' AGL but maybe not at 350'. A surprise departure is likely to take longer to recognize and respond to than practice but longer still without any practice.
> >>
> >> In any case I'd rather have some practice at it than not.
> >>
> >> Similarly, I think landing where you are rapidly bleeding energy such as on an uphill field is a good skill and you can work your way up to a reasonable simulation by landing on the flat with increasing deployment of flaps and spoilers - all the way up to full if you're comfortable. Kawa's description of his landing seemed less about obstacles than rapid bleeding of speed before and following a bounce. Hitting a hidden obstacle truly is a "Fate is the Hunter" moment and an inherent hazard of committing to field landings if they aren't cultivated. I've only landed on a steep uphill once and it definitely is something that you could do better with practice.
> >>
> >> Here again, I'd rather have some practice at it than not. Every landing is an opportunity to practice something before you have to do it under pressure.
> >>
> >> Andy Blackburn
> >> 9B
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 7:45:52 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> >>> It does absolutely no good to practice something you will never use, which is a spin recovery from low altitude. The only solution is prevention - if a particular mistake is going to kill you, you can't do it. Most low altitude spins are due to uncoordinated flight - mostly misuse of the rudder because the pilot fears the visual image he gets by a steep bank.
> >>>
> >>> No amount of landout practice is going to prepare you to landing in a field with unseen obstacles, which is what apparently happened to Kawa. If you push into an area with poor landing options you should not be surprised when things turn out badly.
> >>>
> >>> Tom
> > Andy,
> >
> > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > Tom
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this.

Tom

[Tom BravoMike]

>
> Andy,
>
> (...) Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
>
> Tom

I can, and I was watching it in person: In my ground school group there was one freshly baked pilot who, in his 6th solo flight, stalled the glider and entered a spin in downwind leg at about 200 meters. He recovered in less then 1/4 turn and landed safely after completing the pattern. And yes, practical spin recovery training WAS part of the ground school curriculum.

[BG[_4_]]

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 3:16:37 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Dave Nadler wrote on 9/18/2019 7:43 AM:
> > On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 9:07:32 AM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> ...is many motorgliders do not "plummet" or become less controllable
> >> because the mast is up
> >
> > And, many DO plummet, with reduced control authority.
> > It is highly dependent on what kind of glider!
> > Don't assume...
>
> That's why I recommend owners try at least one airport landing with the mast up,
> and engine stopped, so they know what to expect if it happens to them. The 26E,
> with the gear out and mast up, reminds me of landing a Blanik.
>
> I've never had anyone flying the usual PIK, DG, ASH, and Ventus self-launchers
> mention plummeting or reduced control authority to me, but I'm sure there must be
> some like that. What gliders have this plummet/control authority problem, and how
> bad is the plummet (same as half spoiler, full spoiler, etc), and reduction in
> control?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
> http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
> ,

This is true. I fly a DG800 and with the mask out the sink rate is 4-5 knots, so my glide ratio is roughly 4-5 less. Air starts are typically on down wind to a know good field with in a 10:1 glide. If I am over uncharted territory, I will initiate the restart at a much higher altitude, even this adds extra risk if the engine won't start and I can not retract. The manual clearly states that landing with the mask out can easily lead to a hard landing, especially if any spoilers are deployed, they recommend no spoilers and extra airspeed needed to overcome the added sink rate on touch down. If you were about to land in one of the most difficult fields in your career, why would you choose to make it extra complicated with a engine mask out.. That is if you were not still being wishful it would miraculously start working. I feel this is a critical moment every MG pilot will find themselves one day. So over unlandable or very difficult terrain the plan of action to relight needs to happen at a much higher altitude that will allow retracting if things don't work. With the mask out most gliders performance degrades and requires extra airspeed to reliably reduce the extra sink rate on touch down. We all make mistakes and learn from them. A glider with a mask out in a very difficult outlanding is not good planning, especially if the mask system is working and the engine is not. Those that don't fly a MG think we have some advantage, when indeed we need to terminate our flight as a glider at a higher altitude. If you want to roll the dice and try to restart from a low altitude, if it works great which most of the time it would, but when it does not you are disadvantaged and add plenty of risk. Of my friends who fly a similar glider, one did the right thing in a difficult landing in a known good short field deep in the woods, rather than try a restart he landed. The other landing short with his mask out hanging in the trees on another day.

BG

[[email protected]]

"Pilots are still killing themselves in low level stall-spin"
Why? We are not in agreement on the "why" part 2g. You are pushing the standard line about "coordination". A bunch of us on here are saying WRONG. Coordination is of SeCONDARY importance in relation to ENERGY MANAGEMENT.

I can fly an entirely uncoordinated pattern, slipping all over the place, skidding all over the place and still not be in danger of a stall/spin. Your guy can fly totally coordinated and screw the pooch into a stall/spin because he doesnt manage the energy properly!!

Imop, many are emphasising the wrong factor in stall/spin prevention

[Andreas Maurer[_2_]]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:16:31 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:


>I've never had anyone flying the usual PIK, DG, ASH, and Ventus self-launchers
>mention plummeting or reduced control authority to me, but I'm sure there must be
>some like that. What gliders have this plummet/control authority problem, and how
>bad is the plummet (same as half spoiler, full spoiler, etc), and reduction in
>control?

Arcus M - you ought to be able to find a operating handbook online.
WIth extended power plant the L/D decreases to 13/1 and minimum sink
rate to 443 fpm.

So far I've seen two DG-400s crash that were trying to land with
extended power plant and didn't reach the runway.

Cheers
Andreas

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Tom,

I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.

Andy

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> Andy,
>
> When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
>
> Tom

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:25:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> To paraphrase advice from Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder: if *anything* surprising ever happens in a turn immediately unload (i.e aerodynamically) the wing.
>
> IMO it should be ingrained in every pilot's mind that the instant he is surprised during a turn the he should move the stick forward - only after that should he analyse the situation.

I try to teach myself to respond to a wing drop with stick forward and slightly into the wing drop (to reduce the AOA) and opposite (usually top) rudder. It's a good reflex to build.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[waremark]

Many gliders are not approved for deliberate spinning. Do you guys recommend spinning them anyway? My approach to spin avoidance is to monitor the airspeed, and to teach that if the nose ever goes down uncommanded to push the stick forwards.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:31:25 AM UTC+1, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:25:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > To paraphrase advice from Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder: if *anything* surprising ever happens in a turn immediately unload (i.e aerodynamically) the wing.
> >
> > IMO it should be ingrained in every pilot's mind that the instant he is surprised during a turn the he should move the stick forward - only after that should he analyse the situation.
>
> I try to teach myself to respond to a wing drop with stick forward and slightly into the wing drop (to reduce the AOA) and opposite (usually top) rudder. It's a good reflex to build.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

I completely agree with that Andy. And you don't always have to be flying to do that, the reflex can be reinforced sitting at home repeatedly rehearsing it in your mind.

[BobW]

On 9/20/2019 1:21 AM, waremark wrote:
> Many gliders are not approved for deliberate spinning. Do you guys
> recommend spinning them anyway? My approach to spin avoidance is to monitor
> the airspeed, and to teach that if the nose ever goes down uncommanded to
> push the stick forwards.

Practice, practce, practice.

Leads to (immediate) reaction(s), reaction(s), reaction(s). Good and useful
stuff...at many levels IMO.

Most of my flight time is in 3 ship types: 1-26; (V-tailed) HP-14; Zuni. The
latter two both registered in the (USA's) Experimental category.

The only one I spun was the 1-26.Seventeen turns max one direction; 6 turns
max the other (after which it always self recovered in [as I recall] a
slipping, spiraling, dive...which I never let continue very long). Difficult
(in the asleep at the switch sense of things) to induce any sort of departure
from controlled flight at my (light) weight, much less a spin...but a great
ship in which to practice inadvertent departures...and fun to spin, too.
Difficult to imagine a safer/better glider in which to "practice spinning."
SN105, and - as always, when dealing with spinning - YMMV!

I intentionally never spun the HP because I was unconvinced it had sufficient
tail-feather power to break a fully-developed spin, and, no one was paying me
to be a test pilot. Nor did my uncommanded-departure-practice suggest 'instant
spinning' was in my immediate future. Like the 1-26 it, too, required
serious/continuing inattention to induce even a hint of wing drop, and
'instantaneous' forward stick and opposite rudder quickly set things right
within <90-degree of heading change (the most I ever let it go).

The Zuni (as shown in the ship logs) *was* spun by a(n unpaid, I think, and
intentional) test pilot, but never by me beyond the departure-related wing
drop/initial rotation because of personal-skill-related concerns associated
with overspeeding the diving recovery...buttressed by my personal
rationale/concerns about the 'guaranteed repeatability' of fully-developed
spin behavior in any bird. That said, it too was docility personified in its
'asleep at the switch' departure-related behaviors (which varied with flap
settings). How do I know? Practice, practice, practice...

And so...just to be explicit, *I* certainly don't recommend anyone play Joe
Test Pilot in the spinning sense - *especially* if the ship's POH explicitly
prohibits spins. There's a continuum of ship-behavior (and time) between an
uncommanded departure from controlled flight, and a fully-developed spin, and
'practicing sensibly' along that continuum is what I seriously recommend.
Readers are free to interpret such free advice as they wish...or misinterpret
it, too.

Memory, and muscle memory, are your friends when it comes to the unavoidable,
ever-thin(ning) margin patterns and the (should be, dry chuckle) dreaded
uncommanded departure from controlled flight...which continues to be a common
source of pilot fatalities...a good 80+ years after general pilot knollich of
spins, their causes, recommended-recovery-methodology therefrom (or not,
sigh...) were 'essentially understood.'

Practice - and common sense - can be your friends. :-)

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:18:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:31:25 AM UTC+1, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:25:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > To paraphrase advice from Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder: if *anything* surprising ever happens in a turn immediately unload (i.e aerodynamically) the wing.
> > >
> > > IMO it should be ingrained in every pilot's mind that the instant he is surprised during a turn the he should move the stick forward - only after that should he analyse the situation.
> >
> > I try to teach myself to respond to a wing drop with stick forward and slightly into the wing drop (to reduce the AOA) and opposite (usually top) rudder. It's a good reflex to build.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> I completely agree with that Andy. And you don't always have to be flying to do that, the reflex can be reinforced sitting at home repeatedly rehearsing it in your mind.

You can also fly Condor which is a GREAT tool, but nothing beats spins in the real aircraft. For the first ten years of my soaring career I made spin training an annual occurrence, in part because the instructor is the best pilot I have ever flown with. I stopped a nimbus 4 that departed within ¼ turn above a ridge, because of that training. Twenty-five years later I still make an excuse to fly with this semi-retired instructor on occasion, more aerobatics. And I still learn something new each time we fly. Slow flight is also a great was to get to know an aircraft.

[Dan Marotta]

Continuing the thread drift:Â* One day, many years ago, my partner in an
LS-6a asked me if I'd ever stalled it in landing configuration. He said
it would depart in a lively manner.Â* So, one day at the end of a flight,
and with altitude to spare, I practiced traffic pattern stalls in the
landing configuration.Â* ...And it was lively!Â* After that, I paid a lot
more attention to AoA and yaw string in the pattern.

On 9/20/2019 9:09 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:18:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 4:31:25 AM UTC+1, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 6:25:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>>>> To paraphrase advice from Wolfgang Langewiesche in Stick and Rudder: if *anything* surprising ever happens in a turn immediately unload (i.e aerodynamically) the wing.
>>>>
>>>> IMO it should be ingrained in every pilot's mind that the instant he is surprised during a turn the he should move the stick forward - only after that should he analyse the situation.
>>> I try to teach myself to respond to a wing drop with stick forward and slightly into the wing drop (to reduce the AOA) and opposite (usually top) rudder. It's a good reflex to build.
>>>
>>> Andy Blackburn
>>> 9B
>> I completely agree with that Andy. And you don't always have to be flying to do that, the reflex can be reinforced sitting at home repeatedly rehearsing it in your mind.
> You can also fly Condor which is a GREAT tool, but nothing beats spins in the real aircraft. For the first ten years of my soaring career I made spin training an annual occurrence, in part because the instructor is the best pilot I have ever flown with. I stopped a nimbus 4 that departed within ¼ turn above a ridge, because of that training. Twenty-five years later I still make an excuse to fly with this semi-retired instructor on occasion, more aerobatics. And I still learn something new each time we fly. Slow flight is also a great was to get to know an aircraft.

--
Dan, 5J

[Tom BravoMike]

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 2:21:19 AM UTC-5, waremark wrote:
> Many gliders are not approved for deliberate spinning. Do you guys recommend spinning them anyway? My approach to spin avoidance is to monitor the airspeed, and to teach that if the nose ever goes down uncommanded to push the stick forwards.

Is it about their age or design? I'm curious if there are any modern gliders (not motorgliders) not approved for spinning by design - which ones? Thanks.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 9/19/2019 4:07 AM:
> 2g to answer your question, I can recover from a 1/2 turn spin within 150ft but my response has to be instinctive and instantaneous, which it has gotten thru lots of practice.
> You never answered my querry, when is the last time you practiced spins, spin entry, and recovery? Do you intimately know the subtleties of your birds behavior when super slow? Whens the last time you've taken 10 pattern tows and seen how steep you can approach a landing spot and stop short? Do you know how short you can stop? Do you practice very very minimum energy landings to be able to fly the ragged edges of control when you really need to?
>
> These are things every xc pilot should do yearly and definitely when in a new bird.

I disagree. Your level of commitment to landing skills is impressive but not
necessary for safe cross-country flying. I manage my risk by keeping safe landing
places (ie, airports or fields I can easily land in) within easy reach, so I avoid
the need to have such superior landing skills. I also fly a glider with "superior
landing skills" (ASH26E, previously an ASW20C) and the majority of my flying is in
benign areas; when it isn't, I raise my margins to compensate for the difficult area.

For practice, I occasionally do coordinated turns, slowing until a wing drops; and
before every landing, I choose the approach speed, aim , touch down, and stopping
point. Most are standard patterns begun at 1000' agl on downwind, but I mix it up
with lower or shorter patterns, and "expedited arrivals".

The above has worked well for 40+ years (and 1000's of hours) of flying. Staying
safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your limits, rather than
being highly skilled.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Andreas Maurer wrote on 9/19/2019 12:11 PM:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:16:31 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>
>> I've never had anyone flying the usual PIK, DG, ASH, and Ventus self-launchers
>> mention plummeting or reduced control authority to me, but I'm sure there must be
>> some like that. What gliders have this plummet/control authority problem, and how
>> bad is the plummet (same as half spoiler, full spoiler, etc), and reduction in
>> control?
>
> Arcus M - you ought to be able to find a operating handbook online.
> WIth extended power plant the L/D decreases to 13/1 and minimum sink
> rate to 443 fpm.
>
> So far I've seen two DG-400s crash that were trying to land with
> extended power plant and didn't reach the runway.

That's one, perhaps, but 443 fpm doesn't seem like "plummeting" to me. I'm
surprised it's so poor mast up, as I've read the PIK20E is 15:1 with the mast up,
and that's only a 15 meter glider with the engine on the mast, unlike the buried
engine in the Arcus M. How does mast up compare to half or full spoiler, and is
that measured with the gear down?

Here's another data point: the last time I flew my ASH26E, I stopped the engine
while thermalling, but did not lower the mast. The glider continued to climb at a
reduced rate in the thermal. Note that the mast is always left half extended to
cool for several minutes after an engine run, and the thermal climb is not
noticeably improved when the mast is finally fully retracted. So, NO plummet mode
on the 26E, and really don't think it's that much different from an 18 M Ventus or DG.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[[email protected]]

Eric, thanks for the response. While you have been flying relatively high performance machines, I have chosen to go a different route. The challenge for me is doing more with less. I fly a very low performance bird and have been pursuing the goal of setting records and making long distance flights in a 22/1 L/D machine.

To successfully do this type of flying requires a completely different set of soaring skills than the ones you use. Namely, I have to become "comfortable" with multiple low saves on virtually every record flight due to the fact that I do not have the lift-finding-reach that comes with higher performance. As a direct corrolary, I have to also become very proficient in the evaluation and utilization of every available scrap of landable terrain. I don't have the luxury of many others who have the "wing power" to cross large tracts of ground considered unlamdable. For me to reach my goals, I have to intimately know the skills I mentioned previously.

While my situation would be considered extreme by many, it is not. It is simply returning to the type of flying that the soaring pioneers of the 50's and 60's did. But now it can be done with the benefits of modern "high performance" electronic aids such as flight computers, gps, active real time wx, and active tracking, all of which increase the safety and efficiency factors to points our pioneers could only have dreamt of.

All that being said, the skills and the repetitous practice needed to gain those skills (things the successfull pioneers all had) are things that, in my oinion, need to be brought back into vogue. In todays day and age, there is entirely too much dependance upon performance and motorized aid to save a fellow. Proof of this is clearly seen in the rash of fatalities we are seeing.

It is well, necessary, and good to have personal risk standards. I also have them. But what does one do when they find themselves in a pinch, when they find that they have inadvertantly put their tail in a crack. This is what is happening. Sure there are probably a few guys who are simply flying hell bent for leather and as a consequence getting themselves killed. But I think the vast majority of the fatalities and serious injury accidents we are seen are more of the former case, where guys are simply slightly over extended, and finding themselves in a predicament, have no idea how to handle it.

[krasw]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC+3, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Staying
> safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your limits, rather than
> being highly skilled.
>

This is so true. Another truth is that pilots peak at their flying skills pretty early. I'm mid-forties and already accepted that my reaction time, memory, capability to observe things, flying string centered all them time etc. are all past prime, even when flying steady 100-200 hrs every single year. Skill of pilot DOES NOT cumulate over decades. All you can improve is the judgement and that includes recognizing that you could outland to a dime 20 years ago after engine failing to start, and cannot do it anymore.

[[email protected]]

The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open, and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus J (jet) at 38:1. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.

[BobW]

On 9/21/2019 3:58 AM, krasw wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC+3, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> Staying safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your limits,
>> rather than being highly skilled.
>>
>
> This is so true. Another truth is that pilots peak at their flying skills
> pretty early. I'm mid-forties and already accepted that my reaction time,
> memory, capability to observe things, flying string centered all them time
> etc. are all past prime, even when flying steady 100-200 hrs every single
> year. Skill of pilot DOES NOT cumulate over decades. All you can improve is
> the judgement and that includes recognizing that you could outland to a
> dime 20 years ago after engine failing to start, and cannot do it anymore.

At least one non-pilot agrees! "A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint
Eastwood. I'm with Clint on this one. :-)

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." (Richard Bach, "Illusions" 1977)

[BobW]

On 9/21/2019 7:30 AM, BobW wrote:
> On 9/21/2019 3:58 AM, krasw wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC+3, Eric Greenwell
>> wrote:
>>> Staying safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your
>>> limits, rather than being highly skilled.
>>>
>>
>> This is so true. Another truth is that pilots peak at their flying
>> skills pretty early. I'm mid-forties and already accepted that my
>> reaction time, memory, capability to observe things, flying string
>> centered all them time etc. are all past prime, even when flying steady
>> 100-200 hrs every single year. Skill of pilot DOES NOT cumulate over
>> decades. All you can improve is the judgement and that includes
>> recognizing that you could outland to a dime 20 years ago after engine
>> failing to start, and cannot do it anymore.
>
> At least one non-pilot agrees! "A man's got to know his limitations." -
> Clint Eastwood. I'm with Clint on this one. :-)

And at least one other pilot agrees. Check out the video embedded in the link
discussing the recent loss of a highly-modified Wilga...

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/09/the-worlds-best-bush-plane-is-destroyed-on-take-off-in-reno/

Congratulations (and condolences) to Mike Patey (whom I've never met) - PIC,
owner-builder of the destroyed plane - for his accomplishments, not the least
of which is brutal honesty with himself. IMO, pilots of every stripe would be
well-served if the trait were universal.

Be careful, have fun, and - if given the opportunity - learn from your
mistakes. Even better, learn from *others* mistakes!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:30:33 AM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 9/21/2019 3:58 AM, krasw wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC+3, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> Staying safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your limits,
> >> rather than being highly skilled.
> >>
> >
> > This is so true. Another truth is that pilots peak at their flying skills
> > pretty early. I'm mid-forties and already accepted that my reaction time,
> > memory, capability to observe things, flying string centered all them time
> > etc. are all past prime, even when flying steady 100-200 hrs every single
> > year. Skill of pilot DOES NOT cumulate over decades. All you can improve is
> > the judgement and that includes recognizing that you could outland to a
> > dime 20 years ago after engine failing to start, and cannot do it anymore.
>
> At least one non-pilot agrees! "A man's got to know his limitations." - Clint
> Eastwood. I'm with Clint on this one. :-)
>
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

Those are the words of Harry Callahan, not Clint Eastwood.

[Dan Marotta]

Hard data.Â* That what this site needs more of.Â* Thanks, Mark.

On 9/21/2019 7:06 AM, wrote:
> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open, and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus J (jet) at 38:1. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

I watched the crash video and, as soon as I saw the left wing rise and
the right suspension collapse /_before advancing power for takeoff_/, I
thought to myself, "Take it back to the hangar".Â* I think there was a
bit of hubris at work there.

On 9/21/2019 8:04 AM, BobW wrote:
> On 9/21/2019 7:30 AM, BobW wrote:
>> On 9/21/2019 3:58 AM, krasw wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:57:12 AM UTC+3, Eric Greenwell
>>> wrote:
>>>> Staying safe is almost entirely a matter of operating within your
>>>> limits, rather than being highly skilled.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is so true. Another truth is that pilots peak at their flying
>>> skills pretty early. I'm mid-forties and already accepted that my
>>> reaction time, memory, capability to observe things, flying string
>>> centered all them time etc. are all past prime, even when flying steady
>>> 100-200 hrs every single year. Skill of pilot DOES NOT cumulate over
>>> decades. All you can improve is the judgement and that includes
>>> recognizing that you could outland to a dime 20 years ago after engine
>>> failing to start, and cannot do it anymore.
>>
>> At least one non-pilot agrees! "A man's got to know his limitations." -
>> Clint Eastwood. I'm with Clint on this one. :-)
>
> And at least one other pilot agrees. Check out the video embedded in
> the link discussing the recent loss of a highly-modified Wilga...
>
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/09/the-worlds-best-bush-plane-is-destroyed-on-take-off-in-reno/
>
>
> Congratulations (and condolences) to Mike Patey (whom I've never met)
> - PIC, owner-builder of the destroyed plane - for his accomplishments,
> not the least of which is brutal honesty with himself. IMO, pilots of
> every stripe would be well-served if the trait were universal.
>
> Be careful, have fun, and - if given the opportunity - learn from your
> mistakes. Even better, learn from *others* mistakes!
>
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com
>

--
Dan, 5J

[2G]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> "Pilots are still killing themselves in low level stall-spin"
> Why? We are not in agreement on the "why" part 2g. You are pushing the standard line about "coordination". A bunch of us on here are saying WRONG. Coordination is of SeCONDARY importance in relation to ENERGY MANAGEMENT.
>
> I can fly an entirely uncoordinated pattern, slipping all over the place, skidding all over the place and still not be in danger of a stall/spin. Your guy can fly totally coordinated and screw the pooch into a stall/spin because he doesnt manage the energy properly!!
>
> Imop, many are emphasising the wrong factor in stall/spin prevention

That is a pretty remarkable statement - have you analyzed each and everyone of these accidents? I would guess NO. Most of them have no witnesses whatsoever. I witnessed one non-fatal accident, and I would say that both played a role; the pilot lost power during launch in his motorglider and, rather than landing straight ahead (there was plenty of runway remaining), did a low-energy, skidding turn to the crosswind runway. The glider did a spin entry and came down hitting the wingtip first, and then cartwheeled. Yes, you need to do both.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20030416X00519&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA

But, back to your claim that you can't enter a spin if you fly fast enough. It is regularly stated that a wing can be stalled at any speed or attitude.. You are essentially claiming that this can't happen to you - this is a first; I have NEVER heard that claim made before. Good luck with that!

[2G]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
>
> Andy
>
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > Andy,
> >
> > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> >
> > Tom

Andy,

I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:

"We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."

To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA

Tom

[Richard DalCanto]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> > >
> > > Tom
>
> Andy,
>
> I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:
>
> "We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."
>
> To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
>
> Tom

I agree that it is better to not spin in the first place. But I would not post that is a spin recovery that didn't work. Based on the report, it doesn't look like the pilot tried to recover correctly (or at all before turning into a spiral dive). I was amazed when I did spin training in Arizona how quickly a glider recovers as soon as you push the stick forward. This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system. Luckily he didn't kill anybody else with his f*ing drug use. You don't want to know what I really think about dirt bags that fly or drive while impaired.

[2G]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open, and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus J (jet) at 38:1.. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.

The principal source of drag is the prop; the engine bay doors are aligned with the slipstream, and doesn't matter how long they are, the frontal area remains the same (very small). One ASH26e pilot reported a glide of 17:1 with prop out, and the 26e has fairly long engine bay doors. I have landed the 26e with the prop out and it was uneventful. I have also landed the DG400 uneventfully with the prop out; the one thing to remember is that you don't have the same glide that you do with the engine stowed, so don't make big patterns. I suspect that is what happened to the two cases that were cited. I have also made a simulated engine failure landing in a C152, and its glide was significantly worse (had to go straight for the runway after a 135 degree turn).

Tom

[2G]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > > > Andy,
> > > >
> > > > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:
> >
> > "We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."
> >
> > To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
> > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
> >
> > Tom
>
> I agree that it is better to not spin in the first place. But I would not post that is a spin recovery that didn't work. Based on the report, it doesn't look like the pilot tried to recover correctly (or at all before turning into a spiral dive). I was amazed when I did spin training in Arizona how quickly a glider recovers as soon as you push the stick forward. This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system. Luckily he didn't kill anybody else with his f*ing drug use. You don't want to know what I really think about dirt bags that fly or drive while impaired.

The NTSB stated that a blood sample was unavailable, so whether or not he was impaired could not be determined. If the NTSB couldn't determine that, I know you can't!

The spin recovery was attempted (this was witnessed), but was unsuccessful. High performance gliders build up speed very quickly - if you try to pull out of the dive too aggressively, which you are motivated to do avoid over-speeding the glider, you can overload the wings and rip them off. This is an inherent risk of practicing spin recoveries that hasn't been mentioned in this thread.

Tom

[Richard DalCanto]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 2:43:24 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > Tom,
> > > >
> > > > I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
> > > >
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > > > > Andy,
> > > > >
> > > > > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > >
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > > I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:
> > >
> > > "We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."
> > >
> > > To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
> > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > I agree that it is better to not spin in the first place. But I would not post that is a spin recovery that didn't work. Based on the report, it doesn't look like the pilot tried to recover correctly (or at all before turning into a spiral dive). I was amazed when I did spin training in Arizona how quickly a glider recovers as soon as you push the stick forward. This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system. Luckily he didn't kill anybody else with his f*ing drug use. You don't want to know what I really think about dirt bags that fly or drive while impaired.
>
> The NTSB stated that a blood sample was unavailable, so whether or not he was impaired could not be determined. If the NTSB couldn't determine that, I know you can't!
>
>
>
> Tom

It said that the NTSB did not have blood samples to determine the exact drug levels, but they were definitely in his system. Not the kind of person I want to share airspace with.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 9/21/2019 1:30 PM:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open, and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus J (jet) at 38:1.. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.
>
> The principal source of drag is the prop; the engine bay doors are aligned with the slipstream, and doesn't matter how long they are, the frontal area remains the same (very small). One ASH26e pilot reported a glide of 17:1 with prop out, and the 26e has fairly long engine bay doors. I have landed the 26e with the prop out and it was uneventful. I have also landed the DG400 uneventfully with the prop out; the one thing to remember is that you don't have the same glide that you do with the engine stowed, so don't make big patterns. I suspect that is what happened to the two cases that were cited. I have also made a simulated engine failure landing in a C152, and its glide was significantly worse (had to go straight for the runway after a 135 degree turn).

Was the 13:1 measured with gear down? With the propeller stopped? In the flap
position for best glide?


I agree with Tom. It may be counter-intuitive that the drag of a mast is
relatively small, but low speeds, the wing is generally the biggest drag producer,
not stuff sticking out in the wind.


As I mentioned earlier, 26E owners spend 2 to 5 minutes cooling the engine after
stopping it. The mast is lowered to about a 30 degree angle to the fuselage, which
holds the doors completely open. And yet, we can thermal effectively, and when we
finally stow the mast, we don't notice any improvement in climb rate. We're not
fooling ourselves on this - we have thermalled with other gliders while the mast
is in the cooling position, and still climb with them.

Open doors on 26E make very little drag at 50-55 knots, and I suspect that is also
true of the Arcus M. After all, would SH design a glider with doors that reduce
the climb rate by 300 fpm?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:16:46 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > "Pilots are still killing themselves in low level stall-spin"
> > Why? We are not in agreement on the "why" part 2g. You are pushing the standard line about "coordination". A bunch of us on here are saying WRONG. Coordination is of SeCONDARY importance in relation to ENERGY MANAGEMENT.
> >
> > I can fly an entirely uncoordinated pattern, slipping all over the place, skidding all over the place and still not be in danger of a stall/spin. Your guy can fly totally coordinated and screw the pooch into a stall/spin because he doesnt manage the energy properly!!
> >
> > Imop, many are emphasising the wrong factor in stall/spin prevention
>
> That is a pretty remarkable statement - have you analyzed each and everyone of these accidents? I would guess NO. Most of them have no witnesses whatsoever. I witnessed one non-fatal accident, and I would say that both played a role; the pilot lost power during launch in his motorglider and, rather than landing straight ahead (there was plenty of runway remaining), did a low-energy, skidding turn to the crosswind runway. The glider did a spin entry and came down hitting the wingtip first, and then cartwheeled. Yes, you need to do both.
> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20030416X00519&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
>
> But, back to your claim that you can't enter a spin if you fly fast enough. It is regularly stated that a wing can be stalled at any speed or attitude. You are essentially claiming that this can't happen to you - this is a first; I have NEVER heard that claim made before. Good luck with that!

That is quite a read. One of the most instructive events I ever had happen was flying a 2-32 the spin went spiral on me. The nose position didn't seem to change but anti-spin inputs were not working, so I leveled wings and pulled out of dive, before the speed had started to build. The POH for the ASG29 warns that spins might have a tendency to turn into a spiral. Know the slow flight and spin characteristic of what you are flying.

[Dan Marotta]

Don't forget the alcohol.Â* Stoners flying.Â* Who'da thunk it?

On 9/21/2019 2:24 PM, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system.

--
Dan, 5J

[Dan Marotta]

You're supposed to reduce the bank angle before attempting to increase
pitch.Â* Pulling back in a spiral dive almost guarantees wing failure.

On 9/21/2019 2:43 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>> I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:
>>>
>>> "We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."
>>>
>>> To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
>>> https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
>>>
>>> Tom
>> I agree that it is better to not spin in the first place. But I would not post that is a spin recovery that didn't work. Based on the report, it doesn't look like the pilot tried to recover correctly (or at all before turning into a spiral dive). I was amazed when I did spin training in Arizona how quickly a glider recovers as soon as you push the stick forward. This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system. Luckily he didn't kill anybody else with his f*ing drug use. You don't want to know what I really think about dirt bags that fly or drive while impaired.
> The NTSB stated that a blood sample was unavailable, so whether or not he was impaired could not be determined. If the NTSB couldn't determine that, I know you can't!
>
> The spin recovery was attempted (this was witnessed), but was unsuccessful. High performance gliders build up speed very quickly - if you try to pull out of the dive too aggressively, which you are motivated to do avoid over-speeding the glider, you can overload the wings and rip them off. This is an inherent risk of practicing spin recoveries that hasn't been mentioned in this thread.
>
> Tom

--
Dan, 5J

[waremark]

The Arcus M prop is very much bigger than the 26E prop. I have always assumed that is why it has a higher prop out and stopped sink rate.

I practised prop out landings in my 26E with no drama. I have never practised them in my Arcus, but on one occasion the engine failed to start; as usual I had committed to start at 1,000 ft over a landable field, and I landed in it safely without drama. (When the engine starts as normal my maximum height loss from starting to put the prop up is 100 ft).

In the Arcus there is an automated system for lowering the prop when you turn the ignition off to stop the engine. Apart from the one time the engine didn't start I have never tested whether the sink rate with the prop out and stopped is as bad as quoted.

[[email protected]]

The doors may be aligned with the airflow, but that big hole they are supposed to cover is a turbulence bucket.

[[email protected]]

After all, would SH design a glider with doors that reduce
the climb rate by 300 fpm?

Apparently, they did. 443 FPM sink rate is listed in the manual with doors open and mast up. 110 fpm is listed with a 50:1 L/D. Do the math.

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 3:11:04 PM UTC-4, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:16:31 -0700, Eric Greenwell
> > wrote:
>
>
> >I've never had anyone flying the usual PIK, DG, ASH, and Ventus self-launchers
> >mention plummeting or reduced control authority to me, but I'm sure there must be
> >some like that. What gliders have this plummet/control authority problem, and how
> >bad is the plummet (same as half spoiler, full spoiler, etc), and reduction in
> >control?
>
> Arcus M - you ought to be able to find a operating handbook online.
> WIth extended power plant the L/D decreases to 13/1 and minimum sink
> rate to 443 fpm.
>
> So far I've seen two DG-400s crash that were trying to land with
> extended power plant and didn't reach the runway.
>
> Cheers
> Andreas

Some things to consider:

(1) The 'best' sink rate and LD with motor extended are at what speed?
Blue-line is what's quoted for many types, but that's typically much less
than minimum pattern speed, in turn much less than required for safe
round-out from high sink rate.

(2) Drag isn't just prop! In addition to gear doors, there's a
rather large radiator, plus the mast structure and lots of other
bits hanging out in the breeze.

(3) Some models have been fitted with different props over time.
So, your mileage (and plumetting) may vary.

The Ventus 2CM I owned was a real plummeter.
It had significantly reduced pitch and rudder authority
and reduced yaw stability with engine out.
In factory briefing I was warned to be extremely careful not to stall it .
ArcusM engine-out was much less exciting, by far.

I landed both motor out after assorted failures.
The ArcusM was no problem, but the V2CM was pretty exciting.

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

[BobW]

On 9/21/2019 2:30 PM, 2G wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-7,
> wrote:
>> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in
>> performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open,
>> and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we
>> installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main
>> doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the
>> engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus
>> J (jet) at 38:1. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.
>
> The principal source of drag is the prop; the engine bay doors are aligned
> with the slipstream, and doesn't matter how long they are, the frontal area
> remains the same (very small)...
Because I've long been fascinated with aerodynamic drag, this particular topic
fascinates me, and the above exchange reminds me of a factoid my brain thinks
it has retained which - if retained accurately (too lazy to look it up just
now) - may surprise many a RASident. But first...

If the expression "there's devils in the details" applies anywhere,
aerodynamics fits the bill. And for the Truly Anal (or simply Seriously
Interested), I recommend the late Sighard F. Hoerner's masterpiece book,
"Fluid Dynamic Drag" which can be used to actually do a great job of assigning
numerical relative estimates of the drag contributions being discussed above.

I don't expect to actually make such an attempt, but I'm also not gonna bet
the retirement slush fund on "prop drag uber alles" in this instance, while I
*would* be willing to bet some actual money *against* the broad-brush
statement following the semi-colon of the shorter excerpt above being correct,
especially the "...doesn't matter how long they are..." bit.

Shape matters...a *lot* when it comes to aerodynamic drag. In drag-reduction
terms, whether it's more useful to (say) streamline the front of a
motorcycle/rider combo, or fair the rear may surprise many people. Consider a
theoretical, round, 1"-dia lift strut (think 2-33) vs. a faired version of the
same strut, both operating normal to the airflow, at pattern speeds. How many
RASidents would guess the drag coefficient of the former shape vs. the faired
shape is ... wait for it ...

.... ==> 8X <== HIGHER?!? And - like hands in lowball poker, where you only
get worse - it (drag) all adds up!

If I ever get an Arcus M and the POH tells me it has an attention-getting sink
rate with the mast extended and inop engine at pattern speeds, I'm definitely
gonna incorporate some personal testing of that configuration early-on, with
gobs of altitude, in my getting-to-know-the-ship phase...and, in the purely
nut-behind-the-stick sense of things, I don't care *where* the drag sources
may actually be located!!! :-)

YMMV.
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

"But, back to your claim that you can't enter a spin if you fly fast enough.."

Thats your claim of what I said, that's nowhere near to what I said.

I NEVER said a ship can't be stalled when flown fast, any dingbat should know that a common stall or an asymetrical stall can be induced at ANY airspeed. When the critical angle of attack is exceeded, she stops flying. What I said is that Energy Management is a more critical factor than coordination.

Go ahead and try to stall a bird which is being flown at 1.8 to 2 times its turning stall speed at a given angle of bank, iregardless of the position of your yaw string, and you will see your gonna have to put in some serious and noticable stick force. To get an accelerated stall ( and thats what it is) in that configuration, you know your doing something with the stick.

But the guy who is stumbling along slowly, inadvertently loosing airspeed, but flying ohhhh so very "coordinated", he is an accident just waiting to happen!! All he needs is just slight back pressure on that stick and woohooo off he is gonna fall!

You better take a little more care in how you "interpret" folks comments. It would save embarisment.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 9/21/2019 5:44 PM:
> After all, would SH design a glider with doors that reduce
> the climb rate by 300 fpm?
>
> Apparently, they did. 443 FPM sink rate is listed in the manual with doors open and mast up. 110 fpm is listed with a 50:1 L/D. Do the math.

In addition to the doors, the mast and propeller contribute to the drag, as does
the landing gear and flap position. We have insufficient information for sorting
out the respective contributions to the sink rate,

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote on 9/21/2019 5:54 PM:
> I landed both motor out after assorted failures.
> The ArcusM was no problem, but the V2CM was pretty exciting.

What the reasons for such big differences?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 9/21/2019 2:30 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-7,
> > wrote:
> >> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in
> >> performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open,
> >> and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we
> >> installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main
> >> doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the
> >> engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus
> >> J (jet) at 38:1. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.
> >
> > The principal source of drag is the prop; the engine bay doors are aligned
> > with the slipstream, and doesn't matter how long they are, the frontal area
> > remains the same (very small)...
> Because I've long been fascinated with aerodynamic drag, this particular topic
> fascinates me, and the above exchange reminds me of a factoid my brain thinks
> it has retained which - if retained accurately (too lazy to look it up just
> now) - may surprise many a RASident. But first...
>
> If the expression "there's devils in the details" applies anywhere,
> aerodynamics fits the bill. And for the Truly Anal (or simply Seriously
> Interested), I recommend the late Sighard F. Hoerner's masterpiece book,
> "Fluid Dynamic Drag" which can be used to actually do a great job of assigning
> numerical relative estimates of the drag contributions being discussed above.
>
> I don't expect to actually make such an attempt, but I'm also not gonna bet
> the retirement slush fund on "prop drag uber alles" in this instance, while I
> *would* be willing to bet some actual money *against* the broad-brush
> statement following the semi-colon of the shorter excerpt above being correct,
> especially the "...doesn't matter how long they are..." bit.
>
> Shape matters...a *lot* when it comes to aerodynamic drag. In drag-reduction
> terms, whether it's more useful to (say) streamline the front of a
> motorcycle/rider combo, or fair the rear may surprise many people. Consider a
> theoretical, round, 1"-dia lift strut (think 2-33) vs. a faired version of the
> same strut, both operating normal to the airflow, at pattern speeds. How many
> RASidents would guess the drag coefficient of the former shape vs. the faired
> shape is ... wait for it ...
>
> ... ==> 8X <== HIGHER?!? And - like hands in lowball poker, where you only
> get worse - it (drag) all adds up!
>
> If I ever get an Arcus M and the POH tells me it has an attention-getting sink
> rate with the mast extended and inop engine at pattern speeds, I'm definitely
> gonna incorporate some personal testing of that configuration early-on, with
> gobs of altitude, in my getting-to-know-the-ship phase...and, in the purely
> nut-behind-the-stick sense of things, I don't care *where* the drag sources
> may actually be located!!! :-)
>
> YMMV.
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

" I don't expect to actually make such an attempt, but I'm also not gonna bet
the retirement slush fund on "prop drag uber alles" in this instance, while I
*would* be willing to bet some actual money *against* the broad-brush
statement following the semi-colon of the shorter excerpt above being correct,
especially the "...doesn't matter how long they are..." bit."

Ok ,I ran that through Google translate, apparently it is Chinese for blah, blah, blah.

[[email protected]]

" I ran that thru the translator....blah blah blah"
That was a good one Jonathan, I'm still chuckling.

[2G]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:49:44 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 2:43:24 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 1:24:28 PM UTC-7, Richard DalCanto wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 12:32:23 PM UTC-6, 2G wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:27:43 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you misread my post. No one ever practices spins at pattern height and I'd never recommend it. My point was that practicing spins and spin entry and recovery at altitude might save your life should a moment of distraction in the pattern lead to a departure. Never practicing spins at all leads you to trying to figure everything out for the first time at low altitude should the worst happen. Early recognition is half the battle.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:59:47 AM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
> > > > > > Andy,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you are down low (in the pattern) practice COORDINATED flight - that is what will save your ass, not a low-altitude spin recovery. This is just plain, simple common sense. Pilots, lots of them, who don't do this are getting killed, this is fact. Can you produce a SINGLE pilot who has done such a low altitude save?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > Andy,
> > > >
> > > > I didn't misread your post, but I am certain you misread mine:
> > > >
> > > > "We are all saying the same things, the ONLY difference is the emphasis on priorities. We all say that glider pilots should fly coordinated and be taught spin recognition and recovery. I am only pointing out that this isn't totally working because pilots are still killing themselves with low altitude stall-spins. Personally, this happened to a friend of mine, and I witnessed a second friend very nearly kill himself doing exactly this."
> > > >
> > > > To repeat, spin recognition and recovery training should be taught (and practiced). But I think you would agree that it is far better not to enter the spin in the first place, especially at low altitude. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Here is an attempted spin recovery that didn't work:
> > > > https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20090629X04921&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > I agree that it is better to not spin in the first place. But I would not post that is a spin recovery that didn't work. Based on the report, it doesn't look like the pilot tried to recover correctly (or at all before turning into a spiral dive). I was amazed when I did spin training in Arizona how quickly a glider recovers as soon as you push the stick forward. This guy was flying in a competition with other gliders and had Marijuana, and Valium in his system. Luckily he didn't kill anybody else with his f*ing drug use. You don't want to know what I really think about dirt bags that fly or drive while impaired.
> >
> > The NTSB stated that a blood sample was unavailable, so whether or not he was impaired could not be determined. If the NTSB couldn't determine that, I know you can't!
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom
>
> It said that the NTSB did not have blood samples to determine the exact drug levels, but they were definitely in his system. Not the kind of person I want to share airspace with.

The bottom line is the NTSB found that they could not determine impairment - to say he was w/o evidence is uncalled for. Marijuana can be detected in your body a month after last use. Stick to the facts.

BTW, we all know pilots that we would not want to share airspace with.

[2G]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:27:31 PM UTC-7, BobW wrote:
> On 9/21/2019 2:30 PM, 2G wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 6:06:18 AM UTC-7,
> > wrote:
> >> The main reason motorgliders like the Arcus see such a large decrease in
> >> performance with the mast up is that the engine bay doors remain open,
> >> and they are about six feet long. That's a huge amount of drag. When we
> >> installed jet engines in the Tst-14 and four Arcuses, we had the main
> >> doors close over the engine bay and two small "sub-doors" open around the
> >> engine mount. With the engine extended, we measured the L/D of the Arcus
> >> J (jet) at 38:1. The Arcus M gets 13:1 with engine extended.
> >
> > The principal source of drag is the prop; the engine bay doors are aligned
> > with the slipstream, and doesn't matter how long they are, the frontal area
> > remains the same (very small)...
> Because I've long been fascinated with aerodynamic drag, this particular topic
> fascinates me, and the above exchange reminds me of a factoid my brain thinks
> it has retained which - if retained accurately (too lazy to look it up just
> now) - may surprise many a RASident. But first...
>
> If the expression "there's devils in the details" applies anywhere,
> aerodynamics fits the bill. And for the Truly Anal (or simply Seriously
> Interested), I recommend the late Sighard F. Hoerner's masterpiece book,
> "Fluid Dynamic Drag" which can be used to actually do a great job of assigning
> numerical relative estimates of the drag contributions being discussed above.
>
> I don't expect to actually make such an attempt, but I'm also not gonna bet
> the retirement slush fund on "prop drag uber alles" in this instance, while I
> *would* be willing to bet some actual money *against* the broad-brush
> statement following the semi-colon of the shorter excerpt above being correct,
> especially the "...doesn't matter how long they are..." bit.
>
> Shape matters...a *lot* when it comes to aerodynamic drag. In drag-reduction
> terms, whether it's more useful to (say) streamline the front of a
> motorcycle/rider combo, or fair the rear may surprise many people. Consider a
> theoretical, round, 1"-dia lift strut (think 2-33) vs. a faired version of the
> same strut, both operating normal to the airflow, at pattern speeds. How many
> RASidents would guess the drag coefficient of the former shape vs. the faired
> shape is ... wait for it ...
>
> ... ==> 8X <== HIGHER?!? And - like hands in lowball poker, where you only
> get worse - it (drag) all adds up!
>
> If I ever get an Arcus M and the POH tells me it has an attention-getting sink
> rate with the mast extended and inop engine at pattern speeds, I'm definitely
> gonna incorporate some personal testing of that configuration early-on, with
> gobs of altitude, in my getting-to-know-the-ship phase...and, in the purely
> nut-behind-the-stick sense of things, I don't care *where* the drag sources
> may actually be located!!! :-)
>
> YMMV.
> Bob W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

Your "analysis" boils down to "I've read a book on aerodynamics so my gut feeling is better than yours." It would actually have been helpful to do actual calculations. The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag.

Here are some actual Cd figures for various shapes:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/shaped.html
Notice that the flat plate (prop) has a Cd over four times that of a bullet (engine bay door) - at the SAME cross sectional area. A prop is going to have MANY TIMES the frontal area of a set of engine bay doors. Conclusion: your "analysis" is wrong.

Tom

[Ben Coleman]

That's interesting and good to know Dan. I had guessed there might be some bad behaviour in landing trim from the comments in the pilot handbook for my 6b, but had not tested it.
Cheers Ben

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 9/22/2019 1:43 PM:

> The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag.

Don't forget the massive landing gear that puts the wheel and tire almost entirely
outside the fuselage (and it has doors with a frontal section nearly as big as the
engine doors)!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[2G]

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/22/2019 1:43 PM:
>
> > The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag..
>
> Don't forget the massive landing gear that puts the wheel and tire almost entirely
> outside the fuselage (and it has doors with a frontal section nearly as big as the
> engine doors)!
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

That 17:1 figure was with the gear retracted.

Tom

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 12:31:32 PM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!

Have we not leant anything from Bill and Kennth, define "plummet". A MD500 in a 180 degree auto will peg the -3K VSI hard against the stop. But it is not consider "plummeting " just sporting. It is a known and we practice. Same in a glider, know your bird.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

2G wrote on 9/22/2019 9:21 PM:
> On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> 2G wrote on 9/22/2019 1:43 PM:
>>
>>> The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag..
>>
>> Don't forget the massive landing gear that puts the wheel and tire almost entirely
>> outside the fuselage (and it has doors with a frontal section nearly as big as the
>> engine doors)!

I'll have to redo my measurements of years ago. I recall getting about 20:1 in
landing configuration, but I can't find my notes. Who did the 17:1 measurement?

Another data point: In 2008, Dr Jack had the belt break on his 26E, stopped the
engine, but was unable to stop the freely spinning propeller. He wrote "From my
GPS trace the glide ratio during the straight portion of my descent, at around 55
kts in flap 3 with prop spinning, as 18.5"

So, gear up, but prop spinning, he was able to glide about 7 NM to an airport,
then encountered some lift and thermalled up, and briefly considered thermalling
the 11 NM to his home airfield, but decided it was smarter to land. Hardly sounds
like a glider in "plummet mode"?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[[email protected]]

So the moral of all this is that motor equiped sailolane fliers should get some 1-26 xc time?
LOL

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 7:12:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Coleman wrote:
> That's interesting and good to know Dan. I had guessed there might be some bad behaviour in landing trim from the comments in the pilot handbook for my 6b, but had not tested it.
> Cheers Ben

Well, it's hardly "bad behavior". In landing configuration (gear down, landing flaps), my LS6-b has a bit of a g-break at the stall, but it's not violent or particularly bothersome, and you really have to ham-fist it to get any sort of departure. It's actually kind of fun to play with; it's the only way I can get any sort of incipient spin entry out of my '6. In normal thermalling config (5 or 10 flaps), stall is a non-event due to lack of elevator power. (my CG is around 30% forward of aft limit, I think).

Kirk
2000hrs in my LS6-b without any spin issues.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:57:40 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 2G wrote on 9/22/2019 9:21 PM:
> > On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> >> 2G wrote on 9/22/2019 1:43 PM:
> >>
> >>> The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag..
> >>
> >> Don't forget the massive landing gear that puts the wheel and tire almost entirely
> >> outside the fuselage (and it has doors with a frontal section nearly as big as the
> >> engine doors)!
>
> I'll have to redo my measurements of years ago. I recall getting about 20:1 in
> landing configuration, but I can't find my notes. Who did the 17:1 measurement?
>
> Another data point: In 2008, Dr Jack had the belt break on his 26E, stopped the
> engine, but was unable to stop the freely spinning propeller. He wrote "From my
> GPS trace the glide ratio during the straight portion of my descent, at around 55
> kts in flap 3 with prop spinning, as 18.5"
>
> So, gear up, but prop spinning, he was able to glide about 7 NM to an airport,
> then encountered some lift and thermalled up, and briefly considered thermalling
> the 11 NM to his home airfield, but decided it was smarter to land. Hardly sounds
> like a glider in "plummet mode"?
>
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

I had a non start(pilot induced) the other day in my ASG-29E. I was positioned on down wind for my selected field. Rather than mess with the engine(and associated distraction)I put the gear down and landed normally. Since I usually fly a fairly steep approach, I did not sense any meaningful affect on my landing.
FWIW
UH

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 9/23/2019 12:24 PM:
> I had a non start(pilot induced) the other day in my ASG-29E. I was positioned on down wind for my selected field. Rather than mess with the engine(and associated distraction)I put the gear down and landed normally. Since I usually fly a fairly steep approach, I did not sense any meaningful affect on my landing.
> FWIW

In my Guide (and here!), I recommend you put the gear down when you are in the
pattern planning a restart. One less thing to forget if the engine doesn't start.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[john firth]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!

Re prop drag;
At the end of towing in the Citabria, I would cut the engine and then stall
it to stop the wind-milling. This reduced the for a reasonable L/D.
However, a wind-milling prop running free probably has much less drag than
stationary prop.
Who will perform a test?

John F

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

john firth wrote on 9/23/2019 1:48 PM:
> On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 3:31:32 PM UTC-4, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>> Not sure how accurate FB translate is, but it appear as if Mr. Kawa had some sort of incident with an electric motor not working and a rough uphill landing. Gas, electric or jet be careful guys!
>
> Re prop drag;
> At the end of towing in the Citabria, I would cut the engine and then stall
> it to stop the wind-milling. This reduced the for a reasonable L/D.
> However, a wind-milling prop running free probably has much less drag than
> stationary prop.
> Who will perform a test?

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/prop.pdf

The article concludes "it depends"; briefly, high pitch - let it rotate, low
pitch, stop it. Other sources pointed out helicopters autorotate to slow their
descent with the engine disconnected, and clearly that's slower than stopping the
blades!

I'm guessing a 26E with a broken belt has more drag from the spinning prop than a
stopped prop, but do not plan any testing; however, I will be happy to do a
comparison glide with another 26E that has the belt removed. That could be done on
the ground, and then glider towed to height required for the test glide.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[[email protected]]

Interesting rotating verses stationary, I always was taught in power that a rotating prop was more drag than a stopped one as the rotating one acted more like a "disc" than just 2 blades stopped. But know real evidence of that.

CH

[[email protected]]

We should get an aero engineer to comment but in simple terms the AOA of the prop can become negative with a windmilling prop(depending on pitch design and rotational speed). If that happens you get negative thrust.

[2G]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:24:13 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> We should get an aero engineer to comment but in simple terms the AOA of the prop can become negative with a windmilling prop(depending on pitch design and rotational speed). If that happens you get negative thrust.

Here is a study of the subject:
http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc/prop.pdf
Conclusion: it depends.

In this paper the same conclusion is reached (note the date):
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1934/naca-report-464.pdf

Tom

[5Z]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 10:57:40 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I'll have to redo my measurements of years ago. I recall getting about 20:1 in
> landing configuration, but I can't find my notes. Who did the 17:1 measurement?

When I had my '26E, I once flew several self launches to pattern altitude, shut down the engine and landed with the prop extended. It was a complete non-event and felt the same as a pattern and landing in an ASK-21. I like to fly a high and steep final so maybe that's why. I probably used less spoiler in the '26E to maintain the same approach angle. I also applied landing flaps sometime between base and final.

When making a "straight in" type final glide with just a couple hundred feet arrival when some distance out, I'd pick a (or already have one in mind) a few miles out if it still looked marginal. I'd then start the engine, make a few orbits over the safety field to gain altitude, then motor home. Once home, I'd retract the engine part way to cool it and make a landing.

I once joined a ASW-20B in an extremely weak thermal, shut down the motor and again lowered it to the slightly extended cooling position. We were pretty much even in climb and even while gliding to another thermal a mile or two away. So my takeaway there is that at speeds around 60 knots, the open engine doors and partly extended engine produce negligible drag.

IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap. Or to be a bit kinder, like what we tell new glider pilots about thermalling low - stop trying to stay up and just land once at XXXX above ground.

5Z
Now flying ASW-27b

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

5Z wrote on 9/26/2019 12:21 PM:
> lowered it to the slightly extended cooling position.

The "slightly extended cooling position" is about 30 degrees from the fuselage.
There is still all the stuff hanging in the breeze: the propeller, the radiator,
almost the entire mast, and the doors are fully open. It looks dreadfully draggy
to a pilot circling in the same thermal with you, but it's just like Tom says: the
drag is so small, you don't know it's there.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[JS[_5_]]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 5Z wrote on 9/26/2019 12:21 PM:
> > lowered it to the slightly extended cooling position.
>
> The "slightly extended cooling position" is about 30 degrees from the fuselage.
> There is still all the stuff hanging in the breeze: the propeller, the radiator,
> almost the entire mast, and the doors are fully open. It looks dreadfully draggy
> to a pilot circling in the same thermal with you, but it's just like Tom says: the
> drag is so small, you don't know it's there.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1


Got so concerned with staying under the LAS Class B once, didn't completely put away the ASH26E mast until after a cruise to the second thermal. A bit noisy but no big deal.
Once climbed in the 26 together with a Discus 2. I still had the mast in cooling position, the D2 was "P7". Impressed!

Enjoying Fred Drift this time, Seems like Kawa was being condemned for nothing.
Jim

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
> liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.

Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
Including types with many in service.

Please be safe out there,
Best Regards, Dave

[2G]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 1:13:07 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> 5Z wrote on 9/26/2019 12:21 PM:
> > lowered it to the slightly extended cooling position.
>
> The "slightly extended cooling position" is about 30 degrees from the fuselage.
> There is still all the stuff hanging in the breeze: the propeller, the radiator,
> almost the entire mast, and the doors are fully open. It looks dreadfully draggy
> to a pilot circling in the same thermal with you, but it's just like Tom says: the
> drag is so small, you don't know it's there.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
> - "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
> https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

Right - here is a flight where I forgot to complete the cool-down process and flew for 3 hours with the prop in that position:
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-3.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?dsId=7393456
It is really hard to determine the glide degradation with the prop out, but I am sure there is some.

Tom

[2G]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> > IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
> > liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.
>
> Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
> with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
> great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
> Including types with many in service.
>
> Please be safe out there,
> Best Regards, Dave

And you are doing the community a disservice by not naming those MGs. We are, at least, speaking from first-hand knowledge and ALWAYS state the gliders that we have direct experience with.

Tom

[5Z]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:19:04 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> > > IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
> > > liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.
> >
> > Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
> > with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
> > great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
> > Including types with many in service.
> >
> > Please be safe out there,
> > Best Regards, Dave
>
> And you are doing the community a disservice by not naming those MGs. We are, at least, speaking from first-hand knowledge and ALWAYS state the gliders that we have direct experience with.
>
> Tom

Wow, something we both agree on Tom :-)

This started out discussing whether the extended engine on the GP14 would cause it to "plummet" if I recall some previous comments. We're providing some data points for what appears to be a similar looking pylon propeller to the GP14. The GP14 actually looks less draggy.
Now, the first generation MGs with the large and heavy engine on the pylon might be a completely different case. But we're not talking about them.

Tom 5Z

[Dave Nadler]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:19:04 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> > > IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
> > > liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.
> >
> > Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
> > with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
> > great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
> > Including types with many in service.
> >
> > Please be safe out there,
> > Best Regards, Dave
>
> And you are doing the community a disservice by not naming those MGs.
> We are, at least, speaking from first-hand knowledge and ALWAYS state
> the gliders that we have direct experience with.

As I posted above, the worst offender I've personally flown was my V2CM.
Even within a type, there have been different versions, especially changes
in prop. When stopped, the tapered prop of the 26 has less drag than some
of the earlier squarer props (didn't the original 26 have one of those??).

I don't have time to list all the gliders I've flown, but more than a few ;-)

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 12:25:22 AM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> This started out discussing whether the extended engine on the GP14 would
> cause it to "plummet" if I recall some previous comments. We're providing
> some data points for what appears to be a similar looking pylon propeller
> to the GP14. The GP14 actually looks less draggy.

The data points you are providing are totally irrelevant to GP14.
The GP14 has no big radiator as required with gas power and a folding propeller,
though it does not close the engine-bay doors like Antares.
GP14 should be completely benign mast out and prop stopped. No plumetting.

[2G]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 5:56:24 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:19:04 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
> > > > IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
> > > > liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.
> > >
> > > Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
> > > with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
> > > great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
> > > Including types with many in service.
> > >
> > > Please be safe out there,
> > > Best Regards, Dave
> >
> > And you are doing the community a disservice by not naming those MGs.
> > We are, at least, speaking from first-hand knowledge and ALWAYS state
> > the gliders that we have direct experience with.
>
> As I posted above, the worst offender I've personally flown was my V2CM.
> Even within a type, there have been different versions, especially changes
> in prop. When stopped, the tapered prop of the 26 has less drag than some
> of the earlier squarer props (didn't the original 26 have one of those??).
>
> I don't have time to list all the gliders I've flown, but more than a few ;-)

That seems to be an issue with that particular MG, and not all MGs in general. It is like the varying spin behavior of different gliders. I will add another MG to the benign list: the DG505MB.

Tom

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

Dave Nadler wrote on 9/27/2019 5:56 AM:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:19:04 PM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 5:57:40 PM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 3:21:49 PM UTC-4, 5Z wrote:
>>>> IMHO, the dire warnings about poor LD on the POH are there to avoid any
>>>> liability if someone decides to sue after an engine extended mishap.
>>>
>>> Eric and 5Z - Please don't ASSUME that all gliders are as benign as 26
>>> with motor out and stopped. They are not. You are doing the community a
>>> great disservice by ASSUMING that its not a big problem for some gliders.
>>> Including types with many in service.
>>>
>>> Please be safe out there,
>>> Best Regards, Dave
>>
>> And you are doing the community a disservice by not naming those MGs.
>> We are, at least, speaking from first-hand knowledge and ALWAYS state
>> the gliders that we have direct experience with.
>
> As I posted above, the worst offender I've personally flown was my V2CM.
> Even within a type, there have been different versions, especially changes
> in prop. When stopped, the tapered prop of the 26 has less drag than some
> of the earlier squarer props (didn't the original 26 have one of those??).
>
> I don't have time to list all the gliders I've flown, but more than a few ;-)

My 26E has the blunt "tongue depressor" style prop. It doesn't seem to make a
noticeable difference in drag, compared to the newer pointy prop.

We don't want a list of all the gliders you've flown, but just the ones with the
"plummet mode". Pilots often ask me about the characteristics of various
motorgliders, so I'd like to know which ones to caution the about. The V2CM is on
the list, but it's the only one I'm aware of.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1

[5Z]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 6:06:21 AM UTC-7, Dave Nadler wrote:
> The data points you are providing are totally irrelevant to GP14.
> The GP14 has no big radiator as required with gas power and a folding propeller, though it does not close the engine-bay doors like Antares.
> GP14 should be completely benign mast out and prop stopped. No plumetting.

Dave you have it backwards. My data points are for what looks like an obviously more draggy engine setup. And that setup is benign. So that leads me to assume the GP14 is benign as well. But until I fly one and play with it, I really don't know.

5Z