Ka-6 TE Probe

My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it
had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come
with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe.

Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one?

I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the
ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much
simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in
install over the fuselage type?

Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to
sell?

thanks

Pete

On Aug 28, 9:24*am, vontresc wrote:
My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it
had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come
with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe.

Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one?

I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the
ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much
simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in
install over the fuselage type?

Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to
sell?

thanks

Pete

Dick Johnson would probably have told you the fin mount type are not
necessary. See his article on making simple but effective fueslage
mount TE probes in Soaring Magazine. Sorry I don't recall the issue,
think it was a in the last few years. I'd go the path of least work,
kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE
compensation for a Ka-6.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'd go the path of least work,
kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE
compensation for a Ka-6.

Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more
important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E.

The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring...

Marc

On Aug 28, 10:00*am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'd go the path of least work,
kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE
compensation for a Ka-6.

Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more
important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E.

The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring...

Marc

Marc, that was not the point (and you know it :-)). having the T.E.
compensation work over a wide dynamic range makes T.E. compensation
less of a challenge given the performance of older gliders like this.
That is not a slight on the Ka-6. I'd put in an easier to install
fuselage mounted probe and spend that extra money you saved buying
beers/dinner for your tow pilot.

BTW I center iron thermals perfectly in the ASH-26E.


Darryl

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'd go the path of least work,
kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE
compensation for a Ka-6.

Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more
important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E.

My experience in both those gliders is the Ka-6e doesn't need as good a
TE as the 26E, because the cruise speed is much lower. Pulling up from
65 knots isn't as demanding as pulling up from 85 knots.

Once in the thermal, the variations in speed are small and don't affect
the vario reading enough to see the difference between a fin mount or a
fuselage mount. This is particularly true because a 2 or 3 knot
variation at the 50 knot thermalling speed of the 26E is over twice the
altitude change that 2 or 3 knots produces at the Ka-6's 33 knot
thermalling speed.

And finally, my distant recollection of flying the Ka-6e is it's 5 light
wing loading (lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft) and low thermalling speed made it
easier to find/feel/sense and center thermals.

So, I'd suggest trying the very easiest thing first: a TE probe mounted
on the removable turtledeck, probably towards the rear it. If it works,
great; if not, very little effort wasted.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:


And finally, my distant recollection of flying the Ka-6e is it's 5 light
wing loading (lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft)

Well, that went badly: it's 5 lb/sqft vs 8.5 lb/sqft!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:00 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Darryl Ramm wrote:
I'd go the path of least work,
kind of hard to justify worrying about state of the art TE
compensation for a Ka-6.
Last I looked, efficiently finding and centering thermals is even more
important in a Ka-6 than it might be in, say, an ASH-26E.

The Johnson article was in the June 2005 issue of Soaring...

Marc

Marc, that was not the point (and you know it :-)). having the T.E.
compensation work over a wide dynamic range makes T.E. compensation
less of a challenge given the performance of older gliders like this.
That is not a slight on the Ka-6. I'd put in an easier to install
fuselage mounted probe and spend that extra money you saved buying
beers/dinner for your tow pilot.

BTW I center iron thermals perfectly in the ASH-26E.

I would assume so 8^)

On Aug 28, 12:24*pm, vontresc wrote:
My Ka-6 currently has no TE compensation for the Vario. At one time it
had a Scheumann compensator installed, but this nifty box didn't come
with the glider. So now I am looking to install a TE probe.

Does anyone have any recent experience in installing one?

I was initially thinking about the tail mounted type (probably the
ILEC with the socket), but the fuselage mount type would be a much
simpler install. Is the tail mounted probe worth the extra effort in
install over the fuselage type?

Does anyone have a Schuemann compensator gathering dust they want to
sell?

thanks

Pete

Take the time to put it in the fin. This keeps it out of the wing
root wash and will make
the variometer reflect what the glider is doing instead of how it
responds to effect of gusts
on wing root.
It may be easier than trying to work as far behing wing root as it
should go.
Just put one in a K-21 fin and it is MUCH better than aft fuselage.
Good Luck
UH

Eric wrote.......
So, I'd suggest trying the very easiest thing first: a TE probe mounted
on the removable turtledeck, probably towards the rear it. If it works,
great; if not, very little effort wasted.

Yeah, what he said......................I used a vertical TE probe on
my Duster a hundred years ago and it worked as good as I did. If your
intimidated my the thought of drilling and stringing tubes, go the
easy way, it can be mounted forward of the canopy where there isn't
any interference with the wings. Wings & Wheels sells them and I
believe the top bent portion in set to be vertical with the ship set
in flying position (W&B level)
JJ

wrote:
Take the time to put it in the fin. This keeps it out of the wing
root wash and will make
the variometer reflect what the glider is doing instead of how it
responds to effect of gusts
on wing root.
It may be easier than trying to work as far behing wing root as it
should go.
Just put one in a K-21 fin and it is MUCH better than aft fuselage.

Johnson did do testing for both the 6/05 (and an earlier 4/98) article
to determine an appropriate location and height, and:

the author's flight testing indicated that its performance
was just as satisfactory as a tail fin mounted standard
factory built T.E. probe on a Ventus A

The probe was placed on top of the fuselage, just ahead of the aft drag
pin bulkhead, not the middle of the tail boom as is typical of K-21s.
Maybe it's as good, maybe it's not, but it sure beats cutting holes in
the fin...

Marc