![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As I read this, I think about how that one hour of
less flying means different things. Less exhaustion, for one. The most impressive thing to me about the 1-26 diamond guys isn't the flight itself, but the amount of time spent doing it. The super-long wave flights (Kestrel?) were similarly impressive just from the endurance perspective alone. I personally have seen forecast conditions and experienced times when a 300km flight looked possible, but the gliders I had available had low enough performance that I personally didn't have the recent experience with endurance flights to make the 300km with what I considered an adequate margin of safety. For me, the difference between a 3 hour and a 6 hour flight is still quite significant. A flight of over 10 hours (which one might need for a 1000km) looks quite daunting to me. IIRC some of the Kestrel wave flights exceeded this. For the guys who are recommending max wing loading, how much of this is because you want to make the flight as short as possible for endurance reasons? In a similar vein, a 500km downwind seems a lot different (in endurance terms) than a triangle or O&R. At 02:36 03 August 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote: At 18:48 02 August 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote: Tactically, one should take off with full ballast early enough to have a chance of completing the flight, and drop whatever it takes to stay up. That's one approach - but keep in mind that the difference in climb rate between full and empty (in a 45-degree bank) is less than 50 fpm. Furthermore, the McCready-derived XC speed differential for full versus empty water is 6-9 knots. The actual difference with streeting, etc. may be greater. That amounts to about an hour less time on course with water versus without. To break even without ballast you'd have to make about 80 miles before you could get started on course with ballast. I'm thinking this would only be true if the day developed with either very weak (0.5-1.5 knots climb, dry) or very narrow thermals for a very long time (1-2 hours). Under those conditions I don't think you're making 80 miles even if you have Helium in your wings. I'd recommend taking tows until you can stay up with full water. 9B Mark J. Boyd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus A380 water purification | john smith | Piloting | 1 | July 7th 05 02:50 AM |
Induction System Water Problem | Mike Spera | Owning | 1 | January 30th 05 05:29 AM |
Water, water, everywhere, but none for thirsty wings.... | Chris OCallaghan | Soaring | 0 | November 21st 04 03:14 PM |
Questions regarding Air/Oil Separators | Doodybutch | Owning | 6 | April 20th 04 05:56 PM |
Water Cooled Jet Engines: a possibillity then and now? | The Enlightenment | Military Aviation | 3 | December 18th 03 09:41 AM |