Final glide

I can use my Oudie or my Clearnav vario for final glide.
Lately my CNv final glide is 400 feet lower than my Oudie.
The Oudie is right. All the setting are the same.
I cant correct the CNv.
Any idea from other CNv user?
Gilles

Glad nobody died....’final glide’.
Have you checked/compared all the adjustable parameters?
Polars, ballast, bugs, units, winds, QNH, etc.

R

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 5:18:47 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Glad nobody died....’final glide’.
Have you checked/compared all the adjustable parameters?
Polars, ballast, bugs, units, winds, QNH, etc.

R

Also could be margin height, and if the CNv is set up for total energy arrival height (including a pull-up from cruise).
Jim

Le dimanche 22 septembre 2019 07:48:02 UTC-4, s6 a écritÂ*:
I can use my Oudie or my Clearnav vario for final glide.
Lately my CNv final glide is 400 feet lower than my Oudie.
The Oudie is right. All the setting are the same.
I cant correct the CNv.
Any idea from other CNv user?
Gilles

Thank you
Margin height is set at 1000 feet.
Vario behave as if set at 600 feet.
Check all setting, nothing change????
Gilles

Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

It's either a user set up or database problem. There's no other likely possibility.

OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986. Set the margin to zero and let the device tell you your predicted arrival height. If you don't like the numbers you see, do that PIC thing....

T8

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:46:00 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

It's either a user set up or database problem. There's no other likely possibility.

OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986. Set the margin to zero and let the device tell you your predicted arrival height. If you don't like the numbers you see, do that PIC thing....

T8
snip
"OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986"

I beg to disagree with you sir. This is YOUR preference and opinion and maybe other's too and that is ok... but, using a safety margin is strictly a personal preference of others and no it does not go out of style like you so imply above..

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:54:25 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:46:00 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

It's either a user set up or database problem. There's no other likely possibility.

OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986. Set the margin to zero and let the device tell you your predicted arrival height. If you don't like the numbers you see, do that PIC thing....

T8
snip
"OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986"

I beg to disagree with you sir. This is YOUR preference and opinion and maybe other's too and that is ok... but, using a safety margin is strictly a personal preference of others and no it does not go out of style like you so imply above..

It was dumb in 1986 too :-).

No one arrival height covers all situations.

T8

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:13:12 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:54:25 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:46:00 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

It's either a user set up or database problem. There's no other likely possibility.

OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986. Set the margin to zero and let the device tell you your predicted arrival height. If you don't like the numbers you see, do that PIC thing....

T8
snip
"OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986"

I beg to disagree with you sir. This is YOUR preference and opinion and maybe other's too and that is ok... but, using a safety margin is strictly a personal preference of others and no it does not go out of style like you so imply above..

It was dumb in 1986 too :-).

No one arrival height covers all situations.

T8

Of course not but it is still personal a personal preference, no need to be opiniated, there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 9:30:25 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:13:12 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 8:54:25 PM UTC-4, 6PK wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:46:00 PM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 6:55:24 PM UTC-4, waremark wrote:
Have you confirmed for each whether or not they are using total energy arrival height, ie including the expected height recovery from pull up to best glide height? That could easily account for a difference of 400 feet.

Is the difference a fixed value regardless of distance to go, rather than a percentage?

Have you checked whether the elevation of your arrival airfield is set the same in both devices?

It's either a user set up or database problem. There's no other likely possibility.

OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986. Set the margin to zero and let the device tell you your predicted arrival height. If you don't like the numbers you see, do that PIC thing....

T8
snip
"OT... but using a preset margin is sooooo 1986"

I beg to disagree with you sir. This is YOUR preference and opinion and maybe other's too and that is ok... but, using a safety margin is strictly a personal preference of others and no it does not go out of style like you so imply above..

It was dumb in 1986 too :-).

No one arrival height covers all situations.

T8

Of course not but it is still personal a personal preference, no need to be opiniated, there is always more than one way to skin a cat.

Try it the other way, you'll see.

Happy landings,
T8