![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 1, 1:24*pm, johngalloway wrote:
What about this? Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). * *Many contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up. Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that point and so gets distance points only for the flight. *Gliders that reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal scoring practice. A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance, finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of airfield finishes is maintained. * *The control point position and minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go- around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers. [My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the airfield. *The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other is minimised. *Using a line they can spread out laterally without penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point. Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each other because of different eyeball judgements about their height. Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.] John Galloway There is a flaw in your statement as there is no reason with a finish cylinder to flt to a particular point. The US cylinder, as an example, is set to score the finish point and time to wherever the pilot enters the cylinder. As such there is no incentive or need to concentrate gliders on some small point. They can finish and then work into joining the established landing pattern at low speed and with time and altitude to fit in and hopefully, land safely. UH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Few impressions from WWGC 2009 Szeged (HUN) | db | Soaring | 1 | August 4th 09 03:01 PM |
DA 42 accident | Karl-Heinz Kuenzel | Piloting | 86 | April 29th 07 09:05 AM |
F6F accident | Larry Cauble | Naval Aviation | 4 | October 14th 05 06:19 PM |
Accident db? | [email protected] | Owning | 3 | July 25th 05 06:22 PM |
KC-135 accident | Big John | Piloting | 3 | November 19th 03 04:36 PM |