I consider that a very peculiar conclusion. No you don't "need" a brake. You don't "need" 50:1 glide either, though it's nice to have. You don't need a parachute, except every once in a great while. You really don't "need" a glider at all.

There are plenty fo gliderports where it is expected that you will roll clear of the active runway, without hitting parked gliders, cars, spectators - for that you need a brake. If a motorglider that does any taxiing, you need a brake. If there is ever a chance of landing off field, you need a brake..

I would not own a glider without a brake. And I am quite happy to own one with a very effective brake. And most especially if designing a glider or a brake system for one, I would consider it abject incompetence in this day and age to design an ineffective one. Would you skimp on the brake to save a pound, so you can add a pound of water ballast? What exactly is the point?

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 7:54:28 PM UTC-7, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
I think the summary so far is that there's an amazing range of brake effectiveness. One takeaway is that we like having brakes, but so far there are no stories about why having highly effective brakes saved the day, or alternatively why having no brakes led to an unpleasant outcome. This is a not altogether surprising result, considering that my experience mirrors the accounts here.

I'm unsure what conclusion to draw here. It certainly seems that, arguably, effective wheel brakes are seen as a nice-to-have and great wheel brakes are an unneeded luxury. As unsettling as that is to me, if after all these years there's no data to support their need, and even CS-22 barely pays them lip service, then it doesn't seem wholly unjustifiable.

I'd love some hard numbers, if they're out there.