I have some 300 hours in a Duo, and my experience is
that the Duo's brakes are more effective the faster
you fly, compared with other gliders. Hence at the
80 knots used in the test that Tom carried out I would
expect that the brakes would work well. It is at a
55 knot approach speed that the brakes are not very
effective. My technique is that if I need to lose height,
I put the speed up to at least 65 knots. This means
a longer 'float', if the speeed is not reduced, but
in general when doing a field landing the higher speed
would mean that the approach could be made much closer
to any hedge or other obstruction. This is a fundamentally
different philosophy, from the suggestion that approaches
in the Duo must be made at a constant slow speed. At 01:42 02 November 2007, Karl Striedieck wrote:John,The Duo Tom Knauff was flying when we did our full
boards dive off was a turbo version and thus heavier than a non-motorized
ship. The DG-1000 I was flying had heavier pilots, so the payload was about
the same. We agreed to this test before task opening on a day we had some
extra time, because this notion that the Duo had inferior speed brakes had been
floating around for some time and I wanted to see if it held any water.
I joined up on Tom's right wing, less than a span away, and he pushed over,
deploying full brakes and pushing the speed up to 80 knots. In this stabilized
condition I had full brakes deployed in the 1000 and did not fall back
as one might expect of a ship with better braking.As to the matter of tail weights, wheel brakes and
gear configuration there are compromises with both approaches (long and short
main gear). The old Duo's short gear was simpler, lighter and farther aft.
This makes for easier ground handling but requires a nose wheel to handle
max braking. The longer gear of the Duo X and DG 1000 keeps the gear doors
cleaner, but is more likely to go on the nose if the brake is good.Speaking of wheel brake effectiveness, I've spent more
time adjusting, bleeding, modifying and cursing the Duo brake than
all other maintenance matters combined. Maybe my expectations are too high
after years of flawless performance from Schleicher's Cleveland disc brake
systems.Karl Striedieck'John Smith' wrote in message h... Karl Striedieck wrote: Is the 20 meter DG-1000 authorized for acro? With 20m it's authorized for 'basic' acro, which means
Loops, Turns and erect Spins. No rolls and no negative g. With 18m it's authorized for full aerobatics. If it is I'm curious about the reason. Both ships
were designed to meet JAR standards regarding strength and dive brake performance. Because the dive brakes are *not* of equal strenght.
I've never compared side by side, but the DG1000 definitely allows for
a much more sloppy approach. (Not that I would advocate sloppy flying!)
I've read that you compared them and think both are the same, I definitely
don't share your opinion.