Future Club Training Gliders

At 16:03 20 September 2010, John Smith wrote:
I followed this discussion for a while now and frankly, I don't
understand all the fuss. I have never been shown any paritcular landing
attitude, because this would be meaningless as every glider is
different. I've just been told to flare that beast, and keep it flying
as long as possible until it ceases to fly. Ths means increasing the
angle of attack as the speed decays until the glider falls out of the
air. Properly built gliders will do so in a two point attitude, some
more accurate, some less accurate. That's all I've been taught and
that's how I've been doing it for years. Frankly, I couldn't even tell

you the landing attitude.


At last a sensible post on this subject. The way all gliders should be
landed.

Originally Posted by Surfer![_2_]

...
snip

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto th
ground. Flying on is not considered good as it's all too easy to end up
airborne again if there are lumps and bumps, and the average grass strip or
field usually has plenty of those. Landing in less than 200m is not hard in
just about any glass ship so long as approach speed control was good and
there was at least 1/2 airbrake used. The touchdown is either main wheel
and tail wheel/skid at the same time or tail slightly first. Then it's
right back with the stick (which is just about where it will be if the
landing was really held off) to help keep the ship on the ground, and also
to keep the tail wheel/skid planted as long as possible on things like K21s
to aid directional stability if there is a cross-wind.

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

Same way I was taught to land. Works ok. Last OFL was in a Nimbus 3d into a 150m long field over a farm fence. Got it down and stopped in 135m. Duo x that landed before me about 5m less. The nose did touch the ground from some heavy braking at the end of the ground roll but only dirt/mud to clean off. In the picture the crooked trace is the Duo being pushed to the side as I was landing

Colin

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 09:18:04 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sep 20, 11:38Â*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:57:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here
on Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on
either side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my
instructors mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...

My cousin, who lives in Waikanae, said it was a turbulent, gusty day
but none of the reports mention the weather. How would you rate it?

The entire country was covered by a massive storm centered to the south
of the South Island with strong westerly conditions covering the whole
2000 km (north/south) of the country. If you could get high somewhere it
could well have been a record-setting day. Some supermarkets and a
stadium in Southland collapsed due to the weight of snow on them. Around
Auckland and Hamilton trees were coming down and houses losing roofs and
a lot of people lost electricity. In the middle of the North Island
there were a lot of slips on to roads.

It wasn't so bad around Wellington and was, fundamentally, a fine day,
but windy. I wasn't at the club but I'd expect that it was probably
gusting over 30 knots.

Those are mostly fairly benign conditions at Paraparaumu with smooth air
coming off the ocean and on to the hills 3 or 4 km inland, and the sea
cliffs further south. The only real problem is Kapiti Island, 5 km
offshore, which produces wave which can either reinforce the ridge lift
or else dump on to it, and can also generate a fair bit of rotor in
semi-random places.

Thanks for the expansion.

BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

So you are saying that the proper landing technique for a 2-33 is to
jam the stick forward? Or only this technique in off field
landings?


I was taught that the skid is used for braking *only* as a last resort
to prevent running into the (inevitable here in the northeast US) trees
at the end of the runway. Following an otherwise low energy landing, of
course.

Tony

On Sep 20, 10:49*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

Cookie

A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
first) touchdown. *You cannot teach this in a 2-33. *The euro's laugh
at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

If you feel the need to comment so strongly to this thread you may
wish to reveal your real identity. *Otherwise we'll have to assume you
are Lennie the Lurker (and if you don't know who this is, you haven't
been in soaring, or at least on RAS, long enough to comment on these
issues)

I agree that a proper low energy landing in MOST gliders is two point
or there about.

Although the 2-33 does not usually land two point, I still can, do,
and have taught low energy landings in 2-33, and the same techniques
carry on to other gliders, with minimum fuss...I do not allow my
students in the 2-33 to do "fly it on landings".

It has been my experience that those who land a 2-33 properly, land
any glider properly. I have also seen glider pilots who never flew a
2-33 but still manage to land improperly. Its not the glider....its
the pilot!!

Owners of the newest glass ships who can't land them properly, should
seek additional training....but this is a "pilot problem" not an
"aircraft problem".

My whole point is in response to the post that implied that a guy
wrecked a Grob, because he learned in a 2-33.......This is a far
fetched conclusion at best...........The guy wrecked the Grob because
he didn't know how to land, period, regardless of the aircraft.

I'm not a huge fan of the 2-33......but please don't blame the poor
glider for things that are not its fault.......

BTW.....I've seen some of those "Euros" fly ........Some are great
pilots, but they have their share of pilots who can't land
too............

As for your second paragraph:

My name is Bob Cook, everyone who knows me, knows me as
"Cookie"......To anybody who doesn't know me, it doesn't matter squat
what my name is.......Now if you want to comapare "years in gliding"
or hours, or experience or whatever, we can go tit for tat........but
that is meaningless..........

Cookie

On Sep 20, 10:42*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
The 2-33 will withstand less than perfect landings by beginners
because it is designed to do so as a TRAINER. *We are *all allowed to
make mistakes.........The idea is for the student / instructor to work
out all these problems early in the program. Once consistant good
landings are made in the 2-33 the pilot can then easily adapt to any
glider. *If poor landing technique is tolerated in the 2-33 then the
less forgiving gliders will show this defeciency.

But this is all the more arguement for the 2-33 as a trainer, and not
using Grob or ASK as a trainer.......

Cookie

First, I don't see any "argument" there for using the 2-33 as a
trainer. *The 2-33 flies differently than just about anything else out
there. *Beyond basic stick and rudder skills, it doesn't prepare the
pilot to fly anything else. *The rest of the world seems to be able to
use more modern gliders safely and efficiently without regular damage
- they also seem to produce better pilots, at least from world
championship results.

Teaching low energy landings in a 2-33 can be a bit of a trick.
Because the tail is so high relative to the main wheel there is a
tendency to go "ground seeking" with the tail leading to the glider
stalling before the anything touches down and a nice heavy thud.
Hence, very few true low energy landings are taught in a 2-33
(somewhere in the low 30's vs. right around 40). *This also doesn't
prepare for proper 2-points - the angle of attack to 2-point being
much lower in a ASK-21 or similar.

Another thread states the 2-33 works fine because eventually *some* go
on to fly glass, *few* go on to fly X-C, and *fewer* fly a contest.
Again this does not address whether the 2-33 properly prepares pilots
for the types of gliders they will likely be flying - even the author
admits that they must first "transition" (translation: retrain) to the
ASK-21. *This whole process could just be skipped without the
potential for developing all the sloppy habits that almost come from
pilots trained in 2-33's.

The only "argument" in this either thread is based on price point.
And I won't argue with that one.

When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

When only about 4% of the SSA members in this country ever fly in a
contest, the idea of needing high performance trainers seems a bit off
point, those who wish to fly contest, more power too you, the other
96% don't and enjoy or flights just as much.

Thats not the point thats trying to be made here. Just because
someone doesn't go anywhere doesn't mean they don't need to be
properly prepared to fly the wide range of gliders they can buy and
fly, on their own, with no additional requirement beyond a PPL.

It appears about 60-70% of the CFIG commentators would not recommend
the 2-33 for ab-initio training, and 30%-40% would. Out of the later
group, some seem to like the 2-33 more on price point than on its
training qualities. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, and I
don't think anyone is suggesting you can't have fun flying a 2-33.
That doesn't mean the glider has all the qualities many of us would
like to see, and I think thats the point thats trying to be made.

I think this thread has been hashed out enough. I'm signing off
before more tomatoes fly my way.

On Sep 21, 10:05*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?

That happened about three years ago when a pilot visiting from the UK
wrote it off in a river bed.

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:21:15 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:05Â*am, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
BTW, I see that the club sold off Golf Zulu. When did that happen?

That happened about three years ago when a pilot visiting from the UK
wrote it off in a river bed.

Bad news, but at least it was repairable: I see its crossed the ranges to
Masterton.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Sep 20, 5:57*pm, Bruce Hoult wrote:
Incidentally, someone landed their Cirrus on a suburban street here on
Sunday morning. They reportedly deliberately used the poles on either
side of a pedestrian crossing to slow down. I believe my instructors
mentioned tree trunks in this context, but whatever...

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/glid...ectid=10674749

Another article a couple of days later:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...was-his-second