A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Alternative to 500-foot/1-mile rule



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 6th 03, 02:44 AM
Andy Blackburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Alternative to 500-foot/1-mile rule

So here's a different idea:

What if, in instances where we are using a 1 mile cylinder
for the finish, instead of putting in a hard deck of
500', we make it so the scoring program can calculate
TOTAL ENERGY for each glider at the one mile point
(this should be relatively easy to do). The idea would
be for each sailplane to have at least 500' of EQUIVALENT
ALTITUDE at 1 mile. That is, take actual AGL altitude
and add the equivalent altitude that the glider would
have if it's kinetic energy were converted to altitude
(at say 60 knots).

The CD would then have the option to assess penalties
proportional to the difference between 500' and the
actual equivalent altitude for a 'low energy finish'.

Before you all bust my chops over pilot workload calculating
a theoretical energy number, consider what this means
in terms of actual speeds and altitudes.

My ship, on a 10 knot glide to 50' at the center of
the cylinder, would be at 284' doing 139 knots at 1
mile and would have a total energy equivalent altitude
of 984' - nearly twice the 500' limit.

On a 5 knot glide you would be at 214' doing 111 knots,
with a total energy equivalent altitude of 597'.

On a 3 knot glide you'd be doing 97 knots at 187' and
your total energy altitude would be 443' - 57' into
the penalty zone.

On a best L/D glide you'd be at 162' doing 70 knots
and total energy equivalent altitude of 272' - 228'
into the penalty zone.

I don't know about you all, but I'm generally above
the 5-knot altitude and speed at 1 mile on any final
glide that I'd consider reasonable - so I don't think
anyone is going to need to do any math in the cockpit.
At the same time, by measuring total energy, we're
not fixed on a specific altitude irrespective of speed
(a problem with the 500' rule). It also gives the CD
the option to assess a penalty for 'low energy finish'
or not - depending on circumstances. The calculation
off the flight log is simply a guide.

The main advantage is that pilots who want to trade
excess altitude for speed in the last few miles wouldn't
have to go 'heads down' to make sure they don't his
the 500' finish barrier. In fact, the only pilots facing
a penalty would be those who are getting into very
flat final glides (Mc = 3.5 with 50' of buffer).
The chance of dipping into the penalty zone shold reduce
the incentive to press on at low altitude.

There would be no 1-mile 'barrier' to get over - as
there is today and because it is a total energy measure,
the 1 mile heroic pullup to get to 500’ wouldn't happen,
because it wouldn’t help. Also, it would preserve the
incentive for pilots to stick with that last weak thermal
out on course to get some safety margin rather then
heading home on a marginal glide, since even a weak
thermal would reduce potential penalty points faster
than it loses speed points.

It also preserves getting speed points (without penalty)
for rolling finishes – so long as you have enough energy
at 1-mile.

You can adjust the total energy altitude limit and
the number of points per foot below the limit, though
500’ and 1:1 seem like a good start to me.

Thoughts, comments, flames?

9B





  #2  
Old October 6th 03, 04:25 AM
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Andy Blackburn wrote:

What if, in instances where we are using a 1 mile cylinder
for the finish, instead of putting in a hard deck of
500', we make it so the scoring program can calculate
TOTAL ENERGY for each glider at the one mile point
(this should be relatively easy to do). The idea would
be for each sailplane to have at least 500' of EQUIVALENT
ALTITUDE at 1 mile. That is, take actual AGL altitude
and add the equivalent altitude that the glider would
have if it's kinetic energy were converted to altitude
(at say 60 knots).


I agree with the idea, but the fly in the ointment is wind -- the
analysis computer won't know what the wind is, so it can only know your
groundspeed not your airspeed. It will thus let you get away with a
lower airspeed if you're going downwind, while you'll need a higher
airspeed to satisfy it if you're going upwind.

Fortunately, these errors are in the sensible direction, but the
magnitudes of them may or may not be sensible.

-- Bruce
  #3  
Old October 6th 03, 04:45 AM
Andy Blackburn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I does make a difference - 25 knots could bias the
apparent energy by 250'. So you would either have to
estimate wind from the traces based on thermal drift,
and/or make it part of the CD's discretion.

You are correct that a tailwind both raises the apparent
energy as measured by GPS and reduces the altitude
you need to get home, the first effect is bigger than
the first so they don't totally offset.

9B

At 03:30 06 October 2003, Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
Andy Blackburn wrote:

What if, in instances where we are using a 1 mile
cylinder
for the finish, instead of putting in a hard deck
of
500', we make it so the scoring program can calculate
TOTAL ENERGY for each glider at the one mile point
(this should be relatively easy to do). The idea would
be for each sailplane to have at least 500' of EQUIVALENT
ALTITUDE at 1 mile. That is, take actual AGL altitude
and add the equivalent altitude that the glider would
have if it's kinetic energy were converted to altitude
(at say 60 knots).


I agree with the idea, but the fly in the ointment
is wind -- the
analysis computer won't know what the wind is, so it
can only know your
groundspeed not your airspeed. It will thus let you
get away with a
lower airspeed if you're going downwind, while you'll
need a higher
airspeed to satisfy it if you're going upwind.

Fortunately, these errors are in the sensible direction,
but the
magnitudes of them may or may not be sensible.

-- Bruce




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. Larry Dighera Piloting 0 February 22nd 04 04:58 PM
Proposed new flightseeing rule C J Campbell Piloting 8 November 15th 03 03:03 PM
Proposed new flightseeing rule C J Campbell Home Built 56 November 10th 03 06:40 PM
Hei polish moron also britain is going to breach eu deficit 3% rule AIA Military Aviation 0 October 24th 03 11:06 PM
500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll John Cochrane Soaring 84 October 2nd 03 02:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.