![]() |
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gary Nuttall" wrote in message ... Not as much as it disturbs me that there might be people out there who will stake their lives against a set of numbers in a book. The margins of safety are so much tighter in a glider/sailplane than a powered aircraft and a minor change in any one part of the equation could have dramatic results. Let's be clear here.....Some numbers you can be confident in becuase they've been measured in a certain, calibrated and controlled environment and as such I 'trust' them - e.g. VNE/VDF are tested in still air with a new airframe. Even then, I'm not going to fly right up to the limits! The problem I have with calculating a takeoff run is that there are just so many variables involved that you cannot consistently and safely rely on the results. As Todd's post suggests, work out a go/no go point and if you're not airborne, release. As a glider pilot I act within both my and the glider's limits. I trust my instincts that if something doesn't feel right, I abandon the launch while it's still safe to do so. Maybe it's a US vs UK thing but here in the UK we take personal responsibility for our actions. If you're not sure that you have sufficient distance to take-off then why would you trust a set of numbers that say otherwise ? I think the concept of calculating takeoff runs is actually quite interesting but the sheer number of variables involved make it an impracticable exercise. Gary Wow....I certainly didn't think that this question would degenerate into a US bashing exercise but ya just never know on ras! You clearly have a bug up your patoot re quantitation Gary. I think that Bill, Tuno and I are on the same page though. I would challenge Gary's remark that "The margins of safety are so much tighter in a glider/sailplane than a powered aircraft". In fact I think that the opposite is true but then that is for another discussion. I'll only say that the glider on tow is always in better shape than the towplane if the engine quits. Nowhere did I say that this is a matter of inches and would choose to "push to the limits" based upon an equation without the usual margin of safety added to it. Currently we have no place to begin the discussion based upon facts so that is what I'd like to see happen. And also who said anything about the FAA getting involved??? Whether any of you like to admit it or not you are all using data on each glider flight....esp if you go XC. If L/D is worthless then why not try to make that field far off in the distance in your 1-26? So I would surmise that some of you would choose to head up to a high altitude site on a hot day, take a tow then while rolling make a decision as to whether you feel safe continuing. That would seem like a big waste of time to me. And Gary.....I love you guys in the UK......great sense of humor, great beers and some awesome racing pilots......but lets face it......you ain't got no high altitude soaring sites....at least not in Great Britain. ;-) Cheers, Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
measuring arm distances | Heino & Deanne Weisberg | Home Built | 1 | October 21st 05 05:49 PM |
Stuck at work--need takeoff/landing distances for a 172 please | Yossarian | Piloting | 12 | July 14th 05 01:12 PM |
Edge distances in steel | Ed Wischmeyer | Home Built | 3 | August 24th 04 10:53 PM |
Are sectional paths correct across "long" distances? | vincent p. norris | General Aviation | 32 | March 25th 04 02:32 PM |
Are sectional paths correct across "long" distances? | vincent p. norris | Piloting | 36 | March 25th 04 02:32 PM |