Decent Flight

Paul Remde wrote:
Hi Gary,

This may be a stupid question, but I thought the maximum difference between
the start and finish had to be 3281 feet (1000 m), but I see your tow was
quite high. Did you have to take a big distance penalty?

Looks like he towed to 5700' and landed at 3200', so he only lost 2500'.

Also looks like about 30% of the distance can be credited to the 15 knot
south wind. But even without that, it still was over a 500 km flight,
which is pretty impressive in that glider.



It is an amazing flight!

Paul Remde

wrote in message
...

Fantastic flight! Would love to look at the log file! Is is available?
On OLC?

Hmmmm. Try this. I've never filed anything with OLC before so I hope
this works for you. Posting through my son's Google account, you can
reach me via e-mail at:

-Gary

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...tId=1538997862

Looks like he towed to 5700' and landed at 3200', so he only lost 2500'.

Correct.

The flight was well within the 1000m FAI allowance, which was planned
around. What I didn't plan on was overflying the conditions in the
panhandle. With the nice tailwind, I was on track to make or exceed
1000 km total but ran into stagnant air in an area which would
normally have yielded good groundspeeds and a late landing.

-Gary

So why fly the Woodstock and not a Sparrowhawk?

MM

On Jul 26, 8:32*am, wrote:
So why fly the Woodstock and not a Sparrowhawk?

MM

The Woodstock is what I had available to fly. The Sparrowhawk is a
wonderful glider, and I had the privilege of doing early flight test
evaluations on the prototype for Greg Cole. After that, I flew it to
some world records, 3 of which are still current: Distance around a
triangle; 500km speed triangle; 300 km speed triangle. Two things that
are special about this design (in addition to its remarkably low empty
weight)- 1) It has the quickest lateral handling of any glider I am
aware of; 2) It's very small wetted area gives it surprisingly good
performance in strong conditions and at relatively high speeds, in
spite of its low wing loading. Not much friction drag is present.

It doesn't climb quite as well as the Woodstock or Silent II, but you
can't have it all. Re climbing ability, nothing climbs like the Carbon
Dragon. I have a documented save over flat ground from 65' AGL,
witnessed by 2 qualified FAI Observers. While drifting downwind at
Hobbs, I actually had to flatten my turn to lift my inside wing over a
30' high telephone wire during the process

I would love to fly more records in the Sparrowhawk at any time, if
one were made available again. Greg's great guy to work with.

-Gary

First, great flight.

I have a question. In the article (very well written and very good
graphics) there is mention that the distance was "615 miles flown,
including circling (direct route distance is 492 miles)".

That seems an odd statement. Google Earth shows the straight line
distance from Zapata to Lorenzo at about 482 which matches the direct
route mentioned above (I assume you landed out beyond Lorenzo). But I
have never seen a flight listed with "circling distance". How do you
even calculate that? I don't think that CU or the other programs do
any of that type of calculations. Hmmmmm. My $0.02.

Again, great downwind dash and congratulations.

- John DeRosa

On Jul 26, 11:25*am, "Paul Remde" wrote:
Hi Gary,

This may be a stupid question, but I thought the maximum difference between
the start and finish had to be 3281 feet (1000 m), but I see your tow was
quite high. *Did you have to take a big distance penalty?

It is an amazing flight!

Paul Remde


Paul,

I thought about the exact same thing. Flatlanders all think alike I
guess. ;-)

But I did figure out the answer by realizing the landing location was
3000+ feet above the take off point.

That high tow sure came in handy at the beginning of his flight when
he lost 2,700 feet before thermalling.

- John

On Jul 26, 9:51*pm, ContestID67 wrote:
First, great flight.

I have a question. *In the article (very well written and very good
graphics) there is mention that the distance was "615 miles flown,
including circling (direct route distance is 492 miles)".

That seems an odd statement. *Google Earth shows the straight line
distance from Zapata to Lorenzo at about 482 which matches the direct
route mentioned above (I assume you landed out beyond Lorenzo). *But I
have never seen a flight listed with "circling distance". *How do you
even calculate that? *I don't think that CU or the other programs do
any of that type of calculations. *Hmmmmm. *My $0.02.

Again, great downwind dash and congratulations.

- John DeRosa

Hi John:

It is odd. The reporter initially had a difficult time with the
concept that we can't simply fly point to point like an airplane. She
kept asking questions about that issue. Although not included in the
article, circling time was approximately 22% and that number was
supplied to her from the flight analysis figures. She apparently
multiplied that by my average speed to obtain an estimated total
distance flown to get from point to point.

Headlines, you know.

-Gary

On Jul 27, 6:34*am, wrote:
On Jul 26, 9:51*pm, ContestID67 wrote:





First, great flight.

I have a question. *In the article (very well written and very good
graphics) there is mention that the distance was "615 miles flown,
including circling (direct route distance is 492 miles)".

That seems an odd statement. *Google Earth shows the straight line
distance from Zapata to Lorenzo at about 482 which matches the direct
route mentioned above (I assume you landed out beyond Lorenzo). *But I
have never seen a flight listed with "circling distance". *How do you
even calculate that? *I don't think that CU or the other programs do
any of that type of calculations. *Hmmmmm. *My $0.02.

Again, great downwind dash and congratulations.

- John DeRosa

Hi John:

It is odd. The reporter initially had a difficult time with the
concept that we can't simply fly point to point like an airplane. She
kept asking questions about that issue. *Although not included in the
article, circling time was approximately 22% and that number was
supplied to her from the flight analysis figures. She apparently
multiplied that by my average speed to obtain an estimated total
distance flown to get from point to point.

Headlines, you know.

-Gary- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That crap drives me nuts!

In a big article about flying my Woodstock to some state records the
writer said, "at a compact 5 foot 8 inches and 150 lbs the 40 year old
Ames man is only 19 pounds lighter than his plane!"

Just about everyone that read that article focused on that crazy bogus
"fact" thinking holy crap that thing is flimsy as hell!