Wheel brake effectiveness standards

I had an emergency breaking situation where really good breaking saved the day! I was flying our ASH-25 with a new partner out of Williams, Ca. I had several flights with the new guy, but he’d never landed the bird, so I asked if he’d like to make the landing? He said NO, rather firmly and in retrospect, I should have listened, but we had plenty of runway and low winds, so I kinda forced the issue.........bad idea, if someone doesn’t want to do something, that means he isn’t comfortable with it! Well he turned final way too soon.....kinda like where he’d have turned when flying his ASW-20, but here we were, on final a good 300 feet to high! I thought about doing a 360, but thought that might be more dangerous, so we proceeded down final with full spoilers and landing flaps on. Next thing I knew, we were still inches in the air as the hangar went by.........and the south end of the hangar is about 100 feet from the fence! Finally touched down with both of us on the brakes as hard as we could pull aft on the spoiled handle! I could smell burning rubber as smoke rolled out of the wheel well accompanied by loud squealing sound!
We rolled right up the the fence and stopped ...........I kid you not, 1 foot from the fence!
JJ

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 7:55:16 PM UTC-7, Kenn Sebesta wrote:
Does anyone have any data, preferably quantitative, about what sort of braking performance is required? On the one hand, it would seem that effective braking is primordial for safe landing in the event of an outlanding, but on the other hand many gliders seem to have inadequate brakes, to put it charitably. And these brakes oftentimes are not easily actuated, for instance in a B-4 or L-23 where squeezing the wheel brake handle requires releasing the air brake. So it's fair to conclude that brake performance is (or was) a very distant thought.

I've looked through CS-22, but there are no given standards for wheel brakes, only a loose admonition that "If the main landing gear consists only of one or more wheels, the sailplane must be equipped with mechanical braking devices, such as wheel brakes."

In particular, I'm trying to calculate how much energy the brakes need to absorb. An easy analysis is simply calculating the kinetic energy of the plane when landing 5kts faster than stall (since it's hard to glue the plane to the ground when going much faster). However, this grossly underestimates the amount of energy dissipated through rolling and air resistance. It also doesn't account for what might occur if brake forces were so high that the plane tips forward and skids on its nose.

Still, since the consequence of underspeccing the brakes is brake fade and glazing, and the consequence of overspeccing is additional weight and cost, it's worth trying to right-size the system.

Does anyone have any domain specific experience they could share?

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. 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.

As you already found out, there are no standards for a glider's braking ability. But more is better, especially at congested glider operations like Williams.

Tom

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.Â*

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.Â*

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!

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

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 10:49:33 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
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

The "tail weight" being talked about here is how much weight does one need to hoist if lifting the tail while the glider is on the ground (with the pilot seated). For the same tail design and CG and aerodynamics, this "weight" can be changed by moving the wheel forward or backward. The wheel location of course has no effect on the aerodynamics, as long as the CG is still in the same location (relative to the wing and tail).

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.