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

Wheel brake effectiveness standards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 20th 20, 03:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

A very nice analysis except for your question:

So why does the tail weight seem important at first glance?

Tail weight is important for center of gravity considerations.Â* But I'll
bet you knew that.

On 10/20/2020 8:29 AM, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
Brakes on gliders were almost an afterthought until the advent of motorgliders, which are heavier and require more braking authority. My DG400 had a Tost drum brake that was marginal. Schleicher introduced disk brakes which are much more effective.

This is an excellent data point.

But one point that hasn't been mentioned is how much tail weight does the glider has. Braking will be limited to the moment arm of the tail; a light glider can't apply as much braking force as a glider with a heavier tail. And the Schleicher MGs have very heavy tails.

I was initially under this assumption as well, but then I gave it a quick analysis and now I'm convinced the tail weight has very little to do with stopping distance.

Just working off the moment required to tip a modern glass glider forward on its main-- as quantified by hard numbers for a few select aircraft and more generally guesstimated by the effort required to lift the tail to get a dolly under it-- we're looking at around 100Nm per 100kg of plane MTOM.

What this means is that for a 30cm-ish tire diameter, each revolution burns 600J per 100kg MTOM per meter rolled. Nicely, when comparing to kinetic energy the mass cancels out and we can roughly determine that the stopping distance for this maximally effective brake is d=v^2/3.

So for a light plane touching down at 30kts, we're looking at 20m stopping distance without tipping forward on the nose. For a heavier plane touching down at 40kts we're at 35m. Interestingly, those are basically good car stopping distances.

I think all agree that these distances are far shorter than anything we're seeing or can even reasonably expect. We can, therefore, conclude that the tail moment is not the limiting factor.

So why does the tail weight seem important at first glance? Because at anything over a few knots of airspeed you can use the elevator to unload the tailwheel. So it's not the tailwheel weight distribution that's allowing the plane to tip forward when braking hard, it's the (lack of) elevator control.

--------------------------------

It's interesting to consider, in light of this thread, which factors are predominant-- right now I'm hewing toward saying surface quality (no alfalfa!), winds, and airspeed and altitude control are the biggest driver of distance between the start of where a plane could feasibly land and where it ultimately stops. If design choices result in weaker brakes but landing 1kt slower and 500fpm steeperÂ*we might find that the actual stopping distance is improved. Very surprising!


--
Dan, 5J
Ads
  #32  
Old October 20th 20, 03:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.

Le mardi 20 octobre 2020 Ã* 16:29:41 UTC+2, Kenn Sebesta a écritÂ*:

I was initially under this assumption as well, but then I gave it a quick analysis and now I'm convinced the tail weight has very little to do with stopping distance.

Just working off the moment required to tip a modern glass glider forward on its main-- as quantified by hard numbers for a few select aircraft and more generally guesstimated by the effort required to lift the tail to get a dolly under it-- we're looking at around 100Nm per 100kg of plane MTOM.

What this means is that for a 30cm-ish tire diameter, each revolution burns 600J per 100kg MTOM per meter rolled. Nicely, when comparing to kinetic energy the mass cancels out and we can roughly determine that the stopping distance for this maximally effective brake is d=v^2/3.

So for a light plane touching down at 30kts, we're looking at 20m stopping distance without tipping forward on the nose. For a heavier plane touching down at 40kts we're at 35m. Interestingly, those are basically good car stopping distances.

I think all agree that these distances are far shorter than anything we're seeing or can even reasonably expect. We can, therefore, conclude that the tail moment is not the limiting factor.

So why does the tail weight seem important at first glance? Because at anything over a few knots of airspeed you can use the elevator to unload the tailwheel. So it's not the tailwheel weight distribution that's allowing the plane to tip forward when braking hard, it's the (lack of) elevator control.

--------------------------------

It's interesting to consider, in light of this thread, which factors are predominant-- right now I'm hewing toward saying surface quality (no alfalfa!), winds, and airspeed and altitude control are the biggest driver of distance between the start of where a plane could feasibly land and where it ultimately stops. If design choices result in weaker brakes but landing 1kt slower and 500fpm steeper we might find that the actual stopping distance is improved. Very surprising!

  #33  
Old October 20th 20, 03:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Kenn Sebesta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Tango Whisky wrote:
You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.


Before investigating my numbers, I'm going to wait until you provide any evidence of this. Otherwise, I think in 2020 we've learned that faceless internet commenters who dispute but don't provide evidence are to be approached with a certain degree of skepticism.
  #34  
Old October 20th 20, 04:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Kenn Sebesta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Tango Whisky wrote:
You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.


I'm not immune from errors, but before again recalculating I'm going to wait until you provide any evidence of this. Otherwise, I think in 2020 we've learned that faceless internet commenters who dispute but don't provide evidence are to be approached with a certain degree of skepticism.
  #35  
Old October 20th 20, 04:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Galloway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 16:01:04 UTC+1, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Tango Whisky wrote:
You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.

I'm not immune from errors, but before again recalculating I'm going to wait until you provide any evidence of this. Otherwise, I think in 2020 we've learned that faceless internet commenters who dispute but don't provide evidence are to be approached with a certain degree of skepticism.

  #36  
Old October 20th 20, 04:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Galloway[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 16:01:04 UTC+1, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Tango Whisky wrote:
You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.

I'm not immune from errors, but before again recalculating I'm going to wait until you provide any evidence of this. Otherwise, I think in 2020 we've learned that faceless internet commenters who dispute but don't provide evidence are to be approached with a certain degree of skepticism.


Whether or not you can raise the tail enough to nose over also depends on how much downwards lift is exerted by holding the stick back on the ground run. That is more effective, obviously, just after touch down so it is better to put the brake on immediately (if it is needed at all). Irrespective of any calculation my V3M, with a very heavy tail and an effective disc brake, can certainly nose over later in the landing ground run.
  #37  
Old October 20th 20, 04:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
MNLou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

I've been working all year on limiting my ground roll.

I have a LAK17AT that, supposedly, has weak drum brakes. I dispelled that rumor years ago by having full stick back and dropping the nose twice due to hard braking.

I added a 7# brass tailwheel last year which helped both the CG and helped keep the tail on the ground when braking. (Also, helped tail bouncing on early takeoff ground roll.)

I did run into one situation that caused me some angst a few weeks ago. Landed well, stick back, lots of brake. Turned off the runway and hit the brake again. Nope, no joy - big brake fade. I squeezed as hard as I could and stopped with my nose just into the cropland.

Any good ideas on how to limit brake fade? Other than, of course, limit high speed brake use?

Lou
  #38  
Old October 20th 20, 04:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

Have you ever actually flown a glider? It is an innocent question, prompted by the seeming naiveté of your posts. Almost never do you touch down with maximum braking, you brake when you need to, often late in the rollout when the elevator has lost any effect. The reason Tost drum brakes were acceptable in light '80s gliders is any more would put the glider on its nose.. An ASH motorglider on the other hand can skid the tire to a stop, because the tailwheel load is well over 100 lbs. If you had flown a variety of gliders you would have experienced this. Nose wheel trainers can have very effective brakes because they cannot nose over. You need to step away from the calculator and fly more.

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:29:41 AM UTC-7, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
Brakes on gliders were almost an afterthought until the advent of motorgliders, which are heavier and require more braking authority. My DG400 had a Tost drum brake that was marginal. Schleicher introduced disk brakes which are much more effective.

This is an excellent data point.
But one point that hasn't been mentioned is how much tail weight does the glider has. Braking will be limited to the moment arm of the tail; a light glider can't apply as much braking force as a glider with a heavier tail.. And the Schleicher MGs have very heavy tails.

I was initially under this assumption as well, but then I gave it a quick analysis and now I'm convinced the tail weight has very little to do with stopping distance.

Just working off the moment required to tip a modern glass glider forward on its main-- as quantified by hard numbers for a few select aircraft and more generally guesstimated by the effort required to lift the tail to get a dolly under it-- we're looking at around 100Nm per 100kg of plane MTOM.

What this means is that for a 30cm-ish tire diameter, each revolution burns 600J per 100kg MTOM per meter rolled. Nicely, when comparing to kinetic energy the mass cancels out and we can roughly determine that the stopping distance for this maximally effective brake is d=v^2/3.

So for a light plane touching down at 30kts, we're looking at 20m stopping distance without tipping forward on the nose. For a heavier plane touching down at 40kts we're at 35m. Interestingly, those are basically good car stopping distances.

I think all agree that these distances are far shorter than anything we're seeing or can even reasonably expect. We can, therefore, conclude that the tail moment is not the limiting factor.

So why does the tail weight seem important at first glance? Because at anything over a few knots of airspeed you can use the elevator to unload the tailwheel. So it's not the tailwheel weight distribution that's allowing the plane to tip forward when braking hard, it's the (lack of) elevator control.

--------------------------------

It's interesting to consider, in light of this thread, which factors are predominant-- right now I'm hewing toward saying surface quality (no alfalfa!), winds, and airspeed and altitude control are the biggest driver of distance between the start of where a plane could feasibly land and where it ultimately stops. If design choices result in weaker brakes but landing 1kt slower and 500fpm steeper we might find that the actual stopping distance is improved. Very surprising!

  #39  
Old October 20th 20, 05:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

40 kts corresponds to 20.58 m/s. (20.58 m/s) ^2/3 doesn't make any sense unit-wise, and the numerical result would be 7.36.
My Ventus cM touches down at 40 kts and has a hydraulic disc brake which works pretty well. Stopping distance without hitting the nose on the ground (on grass) is 170 m.

Bert
D-KHTW "TW"

Le mardi 20 octobre 2020 Ã* 17:01:04 UTC+2, Kenn Sebesta a écritÂ*:
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Tango Whisky wrote:
You've got your units pretty much messed up, and when you correct for that, your calculation doesn't make any sense.

I'm not immune from errors, but before again recalculating I'm going to wait until you provide any evidence of this. Otherwise, I think in 2020 we've learned that faceless internet commenters who dispute but don't provide evidence are to be approached with a certain degree of skepticism.

  #40  
Old October 20th 20, 05:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Sinclair[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Wheel brake effectiveness standards

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:50:32 AM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
Have you ever actually flown a glider? It is an innocent question, prompted by the seeming naiveté of your posts. Almost never do you touch down with maximum braking, you brake when you need to, often late in the rollout when the elevator has lost any effect. The reason Tost drum brakes were acceptable in light '80s gliders is any more would put the glider on its nose. An ASH motorglider on the other hand can skid the tire to a stop, because the tailwheel load is well over 100 lbs. If you had flown a variety of gliders you would have experienced this. Nose wheel trainers can have very effective brakes because they cannot nose over. You need to step away from the calculator and fly more.
On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:29:41 AM UTC-7, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
Brakes on gliders were almost an afterthought until the advent of motorgliders, which are heavier and require more braking authority. My DG400 had a Tost drum brake that was marginal. Schleicher introduced disk brakes which are much more effective.

This is an excellent data point.
But one point that hasn't been mentioned is how much tail weight does the glider has. Braking will be limited to the moment arm of the tail; a light glider can't apply as much braking force as a glider with a heavier tail. And the Schleicher MGs have very heavy tails.

I was initially under this assumption as well, but then I gave it a quick analysis and now I'm convinced the tail weight has very little to do with stopping distance.

Just working off the moment required to tip a modern glass glider forward on its main-- as quantified by hard numbers for a few select aircraft and more generally guesstimated by the effort required to lift the tail to get a dolly under it-- we're looking at around 100Nm per 100kg of plane MTOM.

What this means is that for a 30cm-ish tire diameter, each revolution burns 600J per 100kg MTOM per meter rolled. Nicely, when comparing to kinetic energy the mass cancels out and we can roughly determine that the stopping distance for this maximally effective brake is d=v^2/3.

So for a light plane touching down at 30kts, we're looking at 20m stopping distance without tipping forward on the nose. For a heavier plane touching down at 40kts we're at 35m. Interestingly, those are basically good car stopping distances.

I think all agree that these distances are far shorter than anything we're seeing or can even reasonably expect. We can, therefore, conclude that the tail moment is not the limiting factor.

So why does the tail weight seem important at first glance? Because at anything over a few knots of airspeed you can use the elevator to unload the tailwheel. So it's not the tailwheel weight distribution that's allowing the plane to tip forward when braking hard, it's the (lack of) elevator control.

--------------------------------

It's interesting to consider, in light of this thread, which factors are predominant-- right now I'm hewing toward saying surface quality (no alfalfa!), winds, and airspeed and altitude control are the biggest driver of distance between the start of where a plane could feasibly land and where it ultimately stops. If design choices result in weaker brakes but landing 1kt slower and 500fpm steeper we might find that the actual stopping distance is improved. Very surprising!



A couple of quick notes............
+++Nosing over while breaking hard is related more to where the main gear is located in respect to the inflight CG. The ASH-25 has the main gear well forward, but the 301 Libelle’s gear is just about over the CG.

+++If you have a hard breaking incident, it’s a good idea to replace the brake pads because the pads are going to be glazed over and thereafter very ineffective. New Cleveland Pads are only $15 bucks each and can be changed without disconnecting the hydraulic lines.
JJ
 




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
Beringer Disc Brake Kit for Schemm-Hirth gliders - experience and effectiveness? WaltWX[_2_] Soaring 35 October 20th 17 08:15 AM
SZD-55 Wheel Brake Adjustment WDM Soaring 2 January 20th 11 10:25 AM
looking for wheel/tire/brake Brad[_2_] Soaring 1 July 29th 10 02:56 AM
SZD-55 Wheel Brake David Pye[_2_] Soaring 4 September 19th 07 03:10 AM
SZD-55 Wheel Brake David Pye[_2_] Soaring 0 September 18th 07 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.