![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark James Boyd wrote:
And Jeff, keep in mind some of the performance is just from the retract wheel. Really I wouldn't buy into a fixed gear glider unless it was a Sparrowhawk. In the end, if the retract idea is scary, just leave the gear down! Tie-wrap it that way if you like! Believe me, you'll outgrow fixed gear quickly... THis might not be obvious, but a glider designed with fixed gear doesn't suffer the same performance penalty a retractable gear glider does when the gear is down. THe typical fixed gear does not extend as far from the fuselage as on a retractable gear glider, and it is faired in properly, so the drag is negligible at thermalling and moderate speeds and small at higher speeds. Because a nonretracting gear is typically on lower performance gliders, I think people come to believe it is a big performance liability. These gliders would still be lower performance with the gear tucked away. For example, note the small handicap difference between these two Russias (US handicap): AviaStroitel Russia AC-4A 1.193 (fixed gear) AviaStroitel Russia AC-4C 1.185 (retract gear) Or the SAME handicap for the two versions of the Phoebus: Bolkow Phoebus A, B 1.025 (A is fixed; B is retract) What the retractable gear can give a designer is flexibility in other aspects. The glider can sit higher off the ground for better wing and fuselage clearance in a off-airport landing, and more "crush space" is available for absorbing very heavy landing loads. Of course, the designer might choose a gear high enough that wing tip stalling on the ground roll is a problem, or not use the crush space effectively (cheaper). You will definitely pay more for the retractable gear because they are more costly to design and build, and some of us will pay more for fixing the glider when they forget to lower the gear or it makes it's own decision about retracting! -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote: And Jeff, keep in mind some of the performance is just from the retract wheel. Really I wouldn't buy into a fixed gear glider unless it was a Sparrowhawk. In the end, if the retract idea is scary, just leave the gear down! Tie-wrap it that way if you like! Believe me, you'll outgrow fixed gear quickly... THis might not be obvious, but a glider designed with fixed gear doesn't suffer the same performance penalty a retractable gear glider does when the gear is down. THe typical fixed gear does not extend as far from the fuselage as on a retractable gear glider, and it is faired in properly, so the drag is negligible at thermalling and moderate speeds and small at higher speeds. This is all quite true. A Russia with gear down will fly worse than a fixed gear Russia (at the same weight). I was really just making the point that if retract gear familiarity is the issue, it's certainly possible to fly for a while and get familiar with other aspects of the glider before mucking with learning the retract gear procedures... Because a nonretracting gear is typically on lower performance gliders, I think people come to believe it is a big performance liability. These gliders would still be lower performance with the gear tucked away. For example, note the small handicap difference between these two Russias (US handicap): AviaStroitel Russia AC-4A 1.193 (fixed gear) AviaStroitel Russia AC-4C 1.185 (retract gear) I disagree completely. Sure, the handicap difference looks small. This is bunk. There is a big difference in performance between these two gliders in even moderate (4 knot) conditions. And in wave or strong ridge lift? The polar at 80 knots is about 15% better for the retract. I'd be willing to bet that two evenly ranked pilots, one in each, would prove that the AC-4c is better. Swap them out every other day, and you'd see the AC-4c win a competition. I think the AC-4c is mishandicapped. It won Sport class at Avenal this year, and Chad Moore took third in a 2000 competition despite missing a day! You can make up for not having flaps to some degree by using ballast, but a big draggy tire (or TWO!) has no fix except gettin' it out of the wind...again, the Sparrowhawk may be an exception because adding the mechanism and space for retract might involve other needed changes that subsequently reduce performance... -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sport Pilot - School Won't Offer | Gary G | Piloting | 38 | February 16th 05 10:41 AM |
Bad publicity | David Starer | Soaring | 18 | March 8th 04 03:57 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt. | rjciii | Soaring | 36 | August 25th 03 04:50 PM |
Announce/USA: FAA Glider Flying Handbook / Bob Wander | SoarBooks | Soaring | 0 | August 11th 03 03:55 PM |