using less spoiler just before the flare???

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

But we know the difference, and we also know that originally
the DFS divebrakes were speed limiting vertically before
the standards were changed.

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

At 19:06 27 October 2007, Martin Gregorie wrote:
Phil Collin wrote:
Whilst I have enjoyed reading this thread there is
one thing bugging me.
you all keep referring to spoilers, when in actuality
I believe you are
referring to airbrakes.
Spoilers, as those of you that have and do fly gliders
/ motor gliders
which utilise spoilers will know how different
their behaviour is to that of airbrakes.
sits back and awaits #flames#

I've noticed that Americans tend to refer to airbrakes
as spoilers. I
wonder if this is because most (all?) Schweitzer iron
is fitted with
spoilers rather than Schlemp-Hirth air brakes. Most
Americans seem to
have learnt in the SGS 2/33.

Personally, the only spoiler-equipped gliders I've
flown are our
Slingsby T-21b and an SGS 2/33. The spoilers on both
are memorably
ineffective.


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

Martin Gregorie wrote:
Phil Collin wrote:
Whilst I have enjoyed reading this thread there is one thing bugging me.
you all keep referring to spoilers, when in actuality I believe you
are referring to airbrakes.
Spoilers, as those of you that have and do fly gliders / motor gliders
which utilise spoilers will know how different
their behaviour is to that of airbrakes.
sits back and awaits #flames#

I've noticed that Americans tend to refer to airbrakes as spoilers. I
wonder if this is because most (all?) Schweitzer iron is fitted with
spoilers rather than Schlemp-Hirth air brakes. Most Americans seem to
have learnt in the SGS 2/33.

Hmm, I was taught:
Schemmp-Hirth style glide path control devices are spoilers (kill the
lift, make drag by sticking into the wind and requiring greater induced
drag through higher aoa). Spoilers increase stall speed.
The trailing edge thingees on my old Ventus and Mosquito are dive
brakes. They don't affect lift or stall speed much.
The things on 2-33s remind the student it's time to begin a slip ;-)


Shawn

shawn wrote:

The things on 2-33s remind the student it's time to begin a slip ;-)

Very well put!

And to be fair to that bird, it does slip remarkably effectively and
controllably.


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

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

There is one TG-3 left flying, N60434, S/N 88. It
belongs to a fellow in Tennessee, I believe, Ron Naylor.
This glider never saw military duty and was bought
still in the crate by some folks at Harris Hill, who
sold it to the Tar Heel Soaring Club in Burlington,
NC back around 1960. It is the glider I learned on
after soloing SG-38s with the Belgians, and the glider
I did my Silver badge in, and did some instruction
in -- back when there was no CFI-G and commercial glider
pilots could instruct. (I got grandfathered and people
still ask why.)

At 01:12 28 October 2007, Bill Daniels wrote:



'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

On Oct 26, 8:41 pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:12:29 -0700, wrote:

One principle not commonly taught, but worth understanding, is that
spoilers
do somewhat different things in parts of the pattern.
I teach the use of approximately 1/2 spoiler from a point abeam the
touchdown.

Very interesting - I guess you are flying a very tight apporach
pattern, starting very high on downwind, right?

I'm just wonderung, because if we'd do this with the ASK-21 in the
traffic pattern at my home airfield (height at downwind about 650 ft
above ground), we wouldn't even reach the airfield.

Bye
Andreas

LIkely we are teaching a steeper approach profile than you are.
This is because we want pilots used to a fairly step approch on final
to allow shortest landing in a field. It is also easier to judge a
steeper angle.
Pls take the 1/2 spoilers(airbrakes whatever) with a bit of a grain of
salt.
The point is to establish a rate of descent on the order of about
500ft/min
and adjust from there.
UH