On 8/18/2019 2:30 AM, krasw wrote:
On Saturday, 17 August 2019 01:07:44 UTC+3, BobW wrote:
Point being, anyone seriously claiming 'there's no practical difference
in landing capability' between flapped and unflapped gliders is either
genuinely ignorant, or 'discussionally choosing' to ignore the very real
additional landing-capabilities associated with large-deflection
YMMV, Bob - Cap't. Obvious - W.
Sure, if you totally botch landing circuit and approach way too high and
fast, '20 flaps will get you down sooner than D2 airbrakes. But if you get
into this situation, glider you need is ASK21 with flight instructor.
Continuing (I think) a slow drift from the original poster's question...
I guess I don't understand the point you seem to me to be supporting. When I
imagine the "50%-extended glidepath" height-vs.horizontal distance diagram, at
normal approach speed, of (say) an ASW-20 (w. 65-degree flap capability) and a
D2, it strongly suggests to me that the former ship will have a greater number
of theoretically available fields from which to safely choose, independent of
anything else...pilot skill, trees, wind shears, etc. It will also be capable
of actually touching down with less energy to dissipate.
I'm not bashing flapless gliders; simply trying to make the point that
gliders' *usable* landing capabilities, differ...with real-world practical
effects. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree.
Anecdotally speaking, my habit/landing-preference with large-deflection
landing-flap-equipped gliders is to fly landing patterns where the terminal
portion of the approach employs full flap deflection, because: it's fun, not
fundamentally difficult, *and* it's useful prep for outlanding in
approach-obstructed/short fields, and in that sense no different than choosing
to consistently fly/practice full-spoiler-opening approaches in spoiler-only
ships. To each their own...
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.