Future Club Training Gliders

On Sep 18, 8:23*pm, "
wrote:
.



Just to keep this discussion interesting, we can now argue whether a
low energy tailwheel-first landing is OK or bad for a modern glider
(assuming a reasonable sink rate at touchdown)...

Kirk

Ok....I'll start.........on a tail dragger glider.... landing *"ever
so slightly" tail first touch down is a good thing..........if the
approach is stable, and the sink rate is reasonable at touch
down..........by touching the tail first, the main gear will come to
the ground next, lowering the angle of attack on the wing, making it
not likely for the glider to "bounce".

Landing slightly tail first will also indicate that the glider is in
the "low energy" state.....i.e. as slow as practical..(not as slow as
possible, just as slow as practical)

Landing slightly tail first should not put any undue stress on the
airframe, tailwheel/skid etc, because the "weight" at the tail is very
light..........the CG is far forward of the tail...........the glider
will soon settle (softly) on the main gear, where the majority of the
weight is taken by the robust structure / shock absorber etc
there.....

Note............this technique does not mean ....get close to the
ground and jerk the stick back......this would cause the tail to slam
into the ground with consideral impact......not good.

Landing tail high in a taildragger glider is not a good
thing........It indicates excess speed.......since the CG is behind
the main gear, there is a tendancy of the tail to drop after main
touch down, increasing the angle of attack, and possibly resulting in
a *"bounce".

Yes, a "wheel type" landing can be done successfully in a taildragger
glider, but in requires a slight stick forward pressure after touch
down to prevent bouncing, (by lowering the angle of attack.....) * and
excessive speed, onger ground roll etc.

Landing tail first in a nose dragger glider is not a good
thing.................

Landing tail first in a nose dragger will result in the main gear next
touching down, but since the CG is in FRONT of this wheel, the
tendancy is for the glider to continue to pitch forward (nose down)
and contact the skid /nosewheel immediately..........as I mentioned
earlier, the nose wheel or skid is not a "landing gear"......

IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
(too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........

Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......

This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
form "flying the glider on"

Cookie

Well said.

I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
than a couple of inches low.

On Sep 18, 5:53*pm, ray conlon wrote:

Having flown a number of different gliders and power planes over the
years, no two of them handle or land the same, different aircraft take
different methods of landing, what works for a Cessna 150 may not do
so well in a Bonanza, or what works in a 2-33 wont wor'k *well in a
Blanik,Lark,ASK21, etc. Thats why we have instructors to work us
throught the transistion. Orvile and Willber were the only guys who
had a valid reson to teach themselves to fly..

Having flown a number of gliders and power planes over the years, they
are all pretty much landed the same - at the slowest possible speed
allowed by the configuration of the landing gear (and the conditions
at hand - for example a strong gusty crosswind may require a different
technique than a calm day on a short field). It's that gear
configuration that requires different techniques for different
airplanes, not aerodynamics.

That gear configuration is a driving factor in how 2-33s and Blaniks
are landed vs how most modern gliders are landed (I say most because
the PW-5 & 6 may be different, but I have no first hand experience in
those two).

If a student isn't taught the REASON for the specific landing
technique (fixed attitude, slightly tail low, "flown-on" in 2-33s and
Blaniks, due to weak tail vs tail and main at same time, min energy in
glass such as K-21 or G-103) they will probably think that the first
technique they are taught will apply to all future gliders. That can
get very expensive.

Kirk

Tell me of any nose dragger where the method is to jam the stick
forward right at touch down as the guy did in the 2-33 / Grob story
above.........

Cookie

Under certain circumstances (off field landing in very short field)
that is exactly the method that should be used - IF you are in a
glider with a big skid and useless brakes. That's why it is there.
But again - it's a specific technique for a specific condition, not to
be applied universally - and especially not in the G-103! The skid is
not the same as the nose wheel currently used, it serves a different
purpose.

Kirk

On Sep 18, 6:52*pm, "
wrote:

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
attitude"? Do you do that in a G-103? Didn't think so. Where that
tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. The landing
angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
candidate for high energy landing problems. It's not a killer problem
- but it needs to be taught correctly!

Kirk

On Sep 18, 7:23*pm, "
wrote:

IMHO......a nose dragger glider should be landed with "low
energy" *(slow airspeed), but not so slow that the tail touches first
(too slow)......The nose skid/ wheel should be held off the ground
during the ground taxi, as long as elevator authority allows......when
the nose finally drops, the ground speed is very slow........

Same technique works for 2-33, 1-26, *ASK-21, Grob 103......

This is far different from a "wheel type landing" and far different
form "flying the glider on"

Cookie

Agree on most, but disagree on K-21s and G-103s - their nose wheel is
not the same as a nose skid, and they should be landed tail and main
simultaneously, just like a taildragger. Reason? Look at the
achievable angle of attack in the taildown attitude, between a 2-33
and a G-103. Tail low in a 2-33 is a significant angle of attack,
nice and slow, but with the tailwheel still well off the ground. Tail
low in a G-103, with the tailwheel not touching the gound, is going to
be really fast!

Kirk

On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan wrote:
On Well said.

I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
than a couple of inches low.


What? Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? Is that what you
teach your students? No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
buffoons!

Disgustedly,

66

At 16:07 19 September 2010, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:52=A0pm, "
wrote:

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
attitude"? Do you do that in a G-103? Didn't think so. Where that
tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. The landing
angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
candidate for high energy landing problems. It's not a killer problem
- but it needs to be taught correctly!

Kirk

I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them.
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

On Sep 19, 10:16*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan wrote:

On Well said.

I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
than a couple of inches low.

What? *Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? *Is that what you
teach your students? *No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
buffoons!

Disgustedly,

66

You obviously misunderstood something I wrote. Yes, I have lots of
time in those gliders and they do get landed slightly tail low - with
the tail wheel an inch or two lower than the main wheel. It causes no
problems and the landing is a little lower energy than a "two point"
touchdown. In an off field landing, I'd probably have the tail a lot
lower than that.

On Sep 19, 10:05*am, bildan wrote:
On Sep 19, 10:16*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:

On Sep 19, 7:30*am, bildan wrote:

On Well said.

I would differ a tiny bit in that a very slight tail low touchdown in
a nose wheel glider isn't going to be a problem - but nothing more
than a couple of inches low.

What? *Do you guys actually fly K-21s and G-103s? *Is that what you
teach your students? *No wonder the Euros think we are a bunch of
buffoons!

Disgustedly,

66

You obviously misunderstood something I wrote. *Yes, I have lots of
time in those gliders and they do get landed slightly tail low - with
the tail wheel an inch or two lower than the main wheel. *It causes no
problems and the landing is a little lower energy than a "two point"
touchdown. *In an off field landing, I'd probably have the tail a lot
lower than that.

I apologize for getting a bit testy, it was uncalled for.

I think we are all arguing around the same basic concept; sometimes
explaining those concepts can be challenging.

Cheers,

Kirk

On Sep 19, 9:30*am, Don Johnstone wrote
:
I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them..
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

What is interesting is when you compare 4 different gliders: With a
2-33 (nosedragger), you have to pull the nose up until the tail
touches, then lower it until it's at the correct landing attitude (you
establish the range of available touchdown angle of attack). With a
Blanik (taildragger), you have to raise the tail a little bit to show
the desired touchdown angle. With a K-21 (nosedragger), you pull the
nose up until the tail is on the ground, and finally, with a DG-1000
(taildragger), you just level the wings.

Again, it's the gear configuration that is important, and why it's
important is something the student needs to understand.

Cheers

Kirk