A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How much water for a 1000K attempt?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #12  
Old August 3rd 05, 06:14 PM
M B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.