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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
Man, I hate clubs that discourage x-country flying. Our little club,
Southern Eagles Soaring, flying out of LaGrange, Georgia, USA, whole heartedly encourages x-country, badge, and contest flying. One of the first flights of our "new" two-place glass bird resulted in a honest cow pasture landout. Of course, we were not too thrilled about the towplane landing out in a cow pasture...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I'm totally with Wally on XC flying with the club. I've been taking students out for 100K or longer flights. They get a chance to see things from a totally different prospective. Wally, you forgot to mention that we were doing a triangle speed run for the second time that day, after we had broken the Georgia record. It least this time it was a 3,500 foot field, and it didn't even have any emu's! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
kirk.stant wrote:
BG, I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly & dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale. I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury). Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually due to logistics of a retrieve. US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it... Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two types of glider pilots out there, at times! Cheers, Kirk 66 Hi Kirk As I said probably semantics. Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent... We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl types and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the groups. For example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a BIG moment in a glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too high to risk, and flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then does low level aerobatics and redline wormburners over the runway at home. One has to wonder. Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news reader - have to fix it. Bruce |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
kirk.stant wrote:
BG, I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly & dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale. I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury). Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually due to logistics of a retrieve. Good catch, Kirk. Another way to put it when talking about doing something: "conservatively" implies the outcome is very predictable; "aggressively" implies it is moderately predictable; foolhardy, impulsively, etc implies the outcome can be anything. BG is right that we balance the risks (generally a landout) and costs (money, time, pleasure) against our goals for each flight. For example, I believe: -Many pilots are attracted to contests because the retrieve process is already set up and they are expected to fly aggressively. It frees them from the usual concerns of organizing a retrieve and the potential embarrassment of landing out. -Some pilots are attracted to 30:1 gliders because they can fly them aggressively and still be retrieved easily, cheaply, and quickly. Look at some of the 1-26 pilots who are very aggressive in their flying and make great flights, but with manageable retrieves; put the same pilot in a 25 meter glider and it'd take days to retrieve them - not practical or fun for a lot of pilots. -A big attraction of a motorglider is it allows a pilot to fly aggressively on every flight, but enjoy the conservative pilot's outcome: home in time for beer and pizza! -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
"BG" wrote in message ... kirk.stant wrote: BG, I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly & dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale. I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury). Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually due to logistics of a retrieve. US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it... Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two types of glider pilots out there, at times! Cheers, Kirk 66 Hi Kirk As I said probably semantics. Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent... We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl types and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the groups. For example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a BIG moment in a glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too high to risk, and flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then does low level aerobatics and redline wormburners over the runway at home. One has to wonder. Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news reader - have to fix it. Bruce One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2 on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because they're very good at finding their next source of lift. Another way to describe a conservative XC pilot is that he will always have two 'known-safe" landing spots within gliding range using half his published max L/D corrected for headwind/tailwind. I'm conservative both ways. I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those who have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just fear of the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty much alike. It's also possible instructors, knowingly or otherwise, have taught landing patterns using landmarks near the home field. The student instinctively knows the "red barn" he uses to turn base won't be there at another airfield and that scares him. It's really great if a student can get experience landing at several different fields. Bill Daniels |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message . .. I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those who have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just fear of the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty much alike. It's not other airports that create the pucker factor, no worries there. It's the obstacle in the field that you couldn't see until you were on final that makes me conservative. I've only had 5 'aux vaches' landouts and on one of them there was an obstacle I didn't see until I was turning final. The Mosquito can make a nice steep approach and I'd conserved my altitude/options so all ended well. That surprise on final did reinforce my conservatism. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
Bill Daniels wrote:
Bruce One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2 on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because they're very good at finding their next source of lift. An interesting observation. My experience with flying in regional and national contests around the country is different: the best pilots don't cruise much faster than the mediocre pilots, but gain their speed from a better choice of where to fly (more lift, less sink), and are much more selective about the thermals they take. The mediocre pilot takes that 4 knot thermal Bill mentions, but the good pilot waits for (and finds) the 6 knot thermal. Another way the good pilot gets that high cross-country speed is by staying out of trouble, mostly by recognizing a poor situation ahead in time to handle it easily. The mediocre pilot isn't aware of the problem as early. Note that I'm using "good" and "mediocre" instead of "aggressive" and "conservative". A good pilot can fly much faster than a mediocre pilot and still be flying more conservatively. Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow an MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed. -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA * Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly * "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4 * "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Agression and landouts (was - LAK-12 Question)
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message news:iQ40i.7879$XG1.4760@trndny07... Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow an MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed. Just change the McCready setting on the PDA software until the speed-to-fly command matches what the pilot was doing. GPS_LOG can automatically set McCready to the average of the last (n) thermals. If that results in a lot of "slow down" indications, the pilot was overflying the conditions. Actually, these pilot also fly at a pretty constant speed - 110 knots IAS. (GPS_LOG also makes a pretty good guess at the IAS.) Bill Daniels |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
LAK-12 Question
I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave
it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier. This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage. While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need someone to steady each tip while I lever it together. It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are an example of the KISS principle. I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the Expedition owners towing jet skis. The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few seasons and it looks great. I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots in it for XC training. Higher performance - fewer landouts. One thing I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve. Best regards, Ken San Jose, CA |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
LAK-12 Question
On May 12, 12:21 pm, Ken Ward wrote:
I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier. This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage. While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need someone to steady each tip while I lever it together. It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are an example of the KISS principle. I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the Expedition owners towing jet skis. The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few seasons and it looks great. I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots in it for XC training. Higher performance - fewer landouts. One thing I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve. Best regards, Ken San Jose, CA boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
LAK-12 Question
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is no | gasman | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 06:39 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |