On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 1:57:40 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 9/22/2019 9:21 PM:
On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:15:41 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 9/22/2019 1:43 PM:

The bottom line is that the total drag of the 26e prop+mast+radiator+engine bay doors drops the glide from 50:1 to 17:1. At best, what you are arguing about is the relative contribution of these elements - my bet is on the prop being the largest. But the only thing that matters is the total drag..

Don't forget the massive landing gear that puts the wheel and tire almost entirely
outside the fuselage (and it has doors with a frontal section nearly as big as the
engine doors)!

I'll have to redo my measurements of years ago. I recall getting about 20:1 in
landing configuration, but I can't find my notes. Who did the 17:1 measurement?

Another data point: In 2008, Dr Jack had the belt break on his 26E, stopped the
engine, but was unable to stop the freely spinning propeller. He wrote "From my
GPS trace the glide ratio during the straight portion of my descent, at around 55
kts in flap 3 with prop spinning, as 18.5"

So, gear up, but prop spinning, he was able to glide about 7 NM to an airport,
then encountered some lift and thermalled up, and briefly considered thermalling
the 11 NM to his home airfield, but decided it was smarter to land. Hardly sounds
like a glider in "plummet mode"?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1

I had a non start(pilot induced) the other day in my ASG-29E. I was positioned on down wind for my selected field. Rather than mess with the engine(and associated distraction)I put the gear down and landed normally. Since I usually fly a fairly steep approach, I did not sense any meaningful affect on my landing.
FWIW
UH