![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it
had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe. Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one? I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in install over the fuselage type? Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to sell? thanks Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 28, 9:24*am, vontresc wrote:
My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe. Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one? I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in install over the fuselage type? Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to sell? thanks Pete Dick Johnson would probably have told you the fin mount type are not necessary. See his article on making simple but effective fueslage mount TE probes in Soaring Magazine. Sorry I don't recall the issue, think it was a in the last few years. I'd go the path of least work, kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE compensation for a Ka-6. Darryl |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'd go the path of least work, kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE compensation for a Ka-6. Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E. The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring... Marc |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 28, 10:00*am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote: I'd go the path of least work, kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE compensation for a Ka-6. Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E. The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring... Marc Marc, that was not the point (and you know it :-)). having the T.E. compensation work over a wide dynamic range makes T.E. compensation less of a challenge given the performance of older gliders like this. That is not a slight on the Ka-6. I'd put in an easier to install fuselage mounted probe and spend that extra money you saved buying beers/dinner for your tow pilot. BTW I center iron thermals perfectly in the ASH-26E. Darryl |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:00 am, Marc Ramsey wrote: Darryl Ramm wrote: I'd go the path of least work, kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE compensation for a Ka-6. Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E. The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring... Marc Marc, that was not the point (and you know it :-)). having the T.E. compensation work over a wide dynamic range makes T.E. compensation less of a challenge given the performance of older gliders like this. That is not a slight on the Ka-6. I'd put in an easier to install fuselage mounted probe and spend that extra money you saved buying beers/dinner for your tow pilot. BTW I center iron thermals perfectly in the ASH-26E. I would assume so 8^) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote: I'd go the path of least work, kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE compensation for a Ka-6. Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E. My experience in both those gliders is the Ka-6e doesn't need as good a TE as the 26E, because the cruise speed is much lower. Pulling up from 65 knots isn't as demanding as pulling up from 85 knots. Once in the thermal, the variations in speed are small and don't affect the vario reading enough to see the difference between a fin mount or a fuselage mount. This is particularly true because a 2 or 3 knot variation at the 50 knot thermalling speed of the 26E is over twice the altitude change that 2 or 3 knots produces at the Ka-6's 33 knot thermalling speed. And finally, my distant recollection of flying the Ka-6e is it's 5 light wing loading (lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft) and low thermalling speed made it easier to find/feel/sense and center thermals. So, I'd suggest trying the very easiest thing first: a TE probe mounted on the removable turtledeck, probably towards the rear it. If it works, great; if not, very little effort wasted. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote:
And finally, my distant recollection of flying the Ka-6e is it's 5 light wing loading (lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft) Well, that went badly: it's 5 lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft! -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric wrote.......
So, I'd suggest trying the very easiest thing first: a TE probe mounted on the removable turtledeck, probably towards the rear it. If it works, great; if not, very little effort wasted. Yeah, what he said......................I used a vertical TE probe on my Duster a hundred years ago and it worked as good as I did. If your intimidated my the thought of drilling and stringing tubes, go the easy way, it can be mounted forward of the canopy where there isn't any interference with the wings. Wings & Wheels sells them and I believe the top bent portion in set to be vertical with the ship set in flying position (W&B level) JJ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Like JJ said
If you want to do it easy and perfectly adequate as well, install a nearly vertical tube ahead of the canopy near the bulkhead ahead of the instrument panel (above the static buttons on the side of the fuselage). I would suggest angling it slightly forward at the top so that the tube is about perpendicular to the upwash induced by the wing. The top of the tube could be about 6-8" outside the fuselage. Plug the top end and put the hole or holes or slots in the back of the tube as drirected from your favorite article by Oran Nicks' (Nicks tube) or Dick Johnson or insert other favorite name here. The plumbing is short, easy to do, and will give a reading that is well compensated. Our club Ka6CR has one like this and it works well. I would not suggest over the wing in the turtledeck, since it could require uncoupling and coupling the pressure tube with some regularity and it would be easy to damage when the turtledeck is off. The position on top of the fuselage near the trailing edge of the wing, however is not a bad one. The flow around the wing is nearly back to a freestream static condition at the trailing edge and the flow had better be attached while cruising or thermalling or there are other problems. If one flys slow enough to separate the flow there, the inboard wing is already stalled and that's flying too slow. ...... Neal JJ Sinclair wrote: Eric wrote....... So, I'd suggest trying the very easiest thing first: a TE probe mounted on the removable turtledeck, probably towards the rear it. If it works, great; if not, very little effort wasted. Yeah, what he said......................I used a vertical TE probe on my Duster a hundred years ago and it worked as good as I did. If your intimidated my the thought of drilling and stringing tubes, go the easy way, it can be mounted forward of the canopy where there isn't any interference with the wings. Wings & Wheels sells them and I believe the top bent portion in set to be vertical with the ship set in flying position (W&B level) JJ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 28, 12:24*pm, vontresc wrote:
My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe. Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one? I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in install over the fuselage type? Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to sell? thanks Pete Take the time to put it in the fin. This keeps it out of the wing root wash and will make the variometer reflect what the glider is doing instead of how it responds to effect of gusts on wing root. It may be easier than trying to work as far behing wing root as it should go. Just put one in a K-21 fin and it is MUCH better than aft fuselage. Good Luck UH |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TE Probe on ASW-15 | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | April 29th 07 01:43 AM |
More on CHT probe replacement | Jim Burns | Owning | 12 | September 1st 05 10:45 PM |
Replacement JPI EGT probe | Robert M. Gary | Owning | 4 | July 16th 05 02:28 AM |
Replacement JPI EGT probe | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 4 | July 16th 05 02:28 AM |
TE-Probe for 1-26D | Heinz Gehlhaar | Soaring | 6 | January 17th 05 10:52 PM |