using less spoiler just before the flare???

Nyal Williams wrote:
You are quite right on all counts, particularly if
you include the 2-22 and the TG-3.

I've just reviewed the descriptions of the 2-22 and TG-3 in Martin
Simon's books in case I'd missed anything. Annoyingly, the text doesn't
mention the brake/spoiler arrangement and the photos don't show it
either. The drawing of the 2-22 shows a broad top surface-only device:
did he get it wrong or does the brake have a really wide sealing strip?
The TG-3 is drawn with a much narrower chord device above and below the
wing and looks much more like an S-H brake.

Thanks for the confirmation about the other Schweitzer gliders.
That was rather a blind guess on my part.

You'll probably have to get used to it. Language changes;
we must all choose our particular upsets over this
fact.

Sure. I wasn't meaning to get at anybody though it may have looked like
it. I've tripped up in the past over different meanings of a word and
I'll probably trip again. This is only terminology and we all know what
the other means. Other words have *radically* different meanings on
either side of the pond, something I'm not about to illustrate!


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

"Martin Gregorie" wrote in message
...
Nyal Williams wrote:
You are quite right on all counts, particularly if
you include the 2-22 and the TG-3.

I've just reviewed the descriptions of the 2-22 and TG-3 in Martin Simon's
books in case I'd missed anything. Annoyingly, the text doesn't mention
the brake/spoiler arrangement and the photos don't show it either. The
drawing of the 2-22 shows a broad top surface-only device: did he get it
wrong or does the brake have a really wide sealing strip? The TG-3 is
drawn with a much narrower chord device above and below the wing and looks
much more like an S-H brake.

Thanks for the confirmation about the other Schweitzer gliders.
That was rather a blind guess on my part.

You'll probably have to get used to it. Language changes;
we must all choose our particular upsets over this
fact.

Sure. I wasn't meaning to get at anybody though it may have looked like
it. I've tripped up in the past over different meanings of a word and I'll
probably trip again. This is only terminology and we all know what the
other means. Other words have *radically* different meanings on either
side of the pond, something I'm not about to illustrate!


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Actually, the TG-3 and the 2-22 had top only spoilers hinged at the front
and closed with a spring. You had to overcome aerodynamic and spring force
to hold them open. I have several hundred hours in a TG-3. You can see
there were no lower surface spoilers on this picture.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...TG-3A_USAF.jpg

Although the 2-22 was a dog, the TG-3 was a reasonably good soaring machine
at about 26:1. The best feature of the TG-3, for the instructor, was the
sliding rear canopy. The worst was the extremely heavy ailerons - most
pilots flew it with both hands on the stick.

There were serious proposals that the 2-22 replacement should have been an
updated TG-3 with lighter metal wings and tail surfaces instead of the
original wood. It would have needed lighter ailerons too. If such a
machine had been produced, it would have been much better than the 2-33.
Note that the TG-3 predates the 2-33 by more than 20 years.

AFIK, the only US made 2-seat glider of this era to have S-H type dive
brakes was the Pratt-Read.
http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/Pl...fm?PlaneID=264

Bill Daniels