Did I see on a website... maybe it was DG that did a test of landing a
sailplane on the water and made the following comments

The Sailplane will dive and strike the bottom in shallow water with
injury to the pilot...

They recommened if a landing were to be made on water... gear down in
a water landing.

I found this curious (power planes land better with gear up) but my
take is that no mater what... its going to be submarine time and with
the gear down more momentum would be lost on the surface portion as
well as the underwater maneuver.

Although from the article I believe that they did not recommend water
landing in any event.

I would have thought the glider shape would have a hydorplane
effect... but I will assume that the drag of the water will lower the
nose and once the tip of the nose were to submerge... things would
happen fast!


I would not want to find out what that ride would be like.







(deb) wrote in message ink.net...
Whatever slows you down in the least amount of time from the fastest impact
is the wrong thing to do. I think I'd take the less speed, as long as the
touchdown was under control. I think that the skiing time with the wheel
down would be measured in fractions of a second even with excess speed.

I have experienced the skiing trick in a J-3. On touchdown there is a
noticeable deceleration and it takes extra power to keep it going. Take away
that power and I think we would have been tail over nose within the length of
the plane, from what would otherwise be a standard wheel it on landing.
The technique of locking the brakes probably has more to do with how much
water you want on the wings versus the skiing effect. The roostertails from
the rotating wheels was impressive. I also think that the depth of the water
is a factor. My experience was in the deep part. Anything over a few feet is
probably called deep.

Using that experience, I would assume that the wheel down glider would not
travel more than a couple of feet before the wheel would submerge. I would
also assume that the glider would stop much more rapidly with the wheel under
the water.

The idea that the fuselage would be sucked down by it's shape (gear up) will
be a terrible surprise to all those boaters out there with upturned stems.
Maybe we need to advise them to put a wheel under the bow so that the
boat will settle into the water easier and won't slow down as fast?




In article ,
Wallace Berry wrote:
Wheel down is the safe way to land on water. I believe that "wheeling it
on", in other words, not a minimum energy landing is the way to go.
Locking the wheel brake (for gliders which have wheel brakes actuated by
other than the dive brake handle) might be a good idea. Bush pilots land
wheeled airplanes on water frequently. They lock the wheel brakes and
hydroplane on the surface right up to sandbars. What one bush pilot told
me was that in a Super Cub, as long as you were at 30 mph or above, the
plane would just ride along on the surface as if you were on pavement.
Even to the point that a hard touchdown would result in a bounce. I
wouldn't have believed him but he showed me videos of him and his
buddies landing on lakes. He also said that it was important to pick a
sandbar that was long enough to get back to 30 mph before you hit the
water. So, for water landings, it would be wheel down, brakes locked if
possible, land just like wheeling a 2-33 on at the local field.

Hope I don't ever have to try it out.