![]() |
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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That does not apply to gliders under JAR22. At manoeuvering spped, you may
apply a full deflection of either aileron, rudder or elevator without causing structural damage (but as Bill pointed out, not two of them). "Bob Faris" wrote in message ups.com... Maneuvering speed only relates to a limiting speed for wing protection in a positive mode. Therefore, any full deflection of controls, other than the elevator in a stick back mode, could result in failure of the airframe. Also, since the wing is the only surface defined under maneuvering speed, there could be a possible failure of elevator, ailerons, fuselage, etc. with abrupt deflections. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bert Willing wrote:
You can be sure that it was calculated for dry, and then set as general limit. How can I be sure? Tony V |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Common sense. Otherwise there would have to be a statement in the flight
manual that it depends on actual weight. "Tony Verhulst" wrote in message . .. Bert Willing wrote: You can be sure that it was calculated for dry, and then set as general limit. How can I be sure? Tony V |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 01:06 14 March 2006, Bob Faris wrote:
There is a common misconception of maneuvering speed among pilots that somehow has been interpreted to be the maximum speed that will not cause airframe damage with full and abrupt control deflections. THIS IS WRONG! The November 2001 crash of the AA Airbus in New York was determined to be from abrupt rudder deflections below maneuvering speed resulting in the loss of the vertical fin. http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...article_id=527 I might be wrong here, but the AA Airbus break-up was due to a repair on the vertical fin spar. The Airbus flight controler positions the controles according to a program designed to limit the amount of deflection so that over stress does not occur. Everything runs through the box. Chuck |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
bagmaker wrote:
Newbie help required! Lets suppose I am on a shallow final glide, 60k out in my 40:1 ship, cruising at 60 knots. Recent thermals have been at least 5 knots and I am coming into some big lift. For the discussion rough air Vne is 100 knots. What strength thermal should I take to increase finishing speed to Vne and how much (if any) time will this save me? How do I estimate this at the time? What is the latest point on track to take such a thermal? Once you HAVE final glide, you should not stop for lift unless you fall below the glide path. If you have a 5kt thermal day, you will be on final glide at a speed somewhat faster than 60kts! As a rule of thumb, if you are in a gaggle climbing to achieve final glide, the first one to leave will get home first (provided they have enough height). I have tried staying in a 6 kt thermal and flying a 6kt final glide rather than leaving at the 4kt final glide mark (when other gliders left) and I did not catch them up, despite my higher speed. On final glide, if I do hit lift, I may slow slightly to use the good air but generally I hold my speed and keep flying. On a good day, you can leave below final glide and pick up enough height to get home this way. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Final Glide: Edward "Ted" Pearson | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | December 4th 05 04:44 PM |
Roger Ruch - Final Glide | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | November 25th 05 09:12 AM |
Final Glide - Allan MacNicol | Roy Bourgeois | Soaring | 3 | July 9th 05 06:53 PM |
Australian Shareware Final Glide Calculator | Neptune | Soaring | 0 | September 6th 04 01:53 AM |
Final Glide for Don Dorrell | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 2 | December 2nd 03 02:56 PM |