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

H201 Libelle and wing dropping



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 25th 04, 09:50 PM
Bob Salvo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wallace Berry" wrote in message

One thing I forgot to
mention, my Libelle only has the CG hook, the nose hook having been
glassed over by a previous owner. Because of this, the tail on my 301
tends to stay down a bit longer than one being towed by the nose hook.
With a long rope, negative flap and the stick forward, I've done
unassisted takeoffs with no trouble. Haven't tried that with a strong
crosswind.


Using the nose hook will reduce the tendancy for wing drops.

Bob Salvo


  #2  
Old October 25th 04, 10:53 PM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Salvo" wrote in message
...

Using the nose hook will reduce the tendancy for wing drops.

Bob Salvo

Really? Why?

Bill Daniels

  #3  
Old October 26th 04, 03:51 AM
Bob Salvo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill,

Not sure, but when I sealed over my nose hook on the H301 and used the CG
hook for aertow, I had more trouble keeping a wing from dropping. I think
when the CG hook is used and there is a wind gust from the side at the start
of launch, there is more tendancy for the tail to swing, which usually
produces some roll. Using the nose hook, which is well in front of the
wheel, reduces the tendancy for a swinging tail. Another interesting thing
I found about using the nose hook is that if the ship happens to vere
towards, say the left, and the left wing starts to drop, the pull force of
the tow rope will try to roll the ship, lifting the wing. I believe this is
because of the larger moment arm (height) between the nose hook and the
pavement. On the other hand, the CG hook is a very close to the pavement,
so there is very little moment force to assist in rolling the ship back to
level. Of course, this could be a disadvantage if the roll force caused by
the tow is holding the wing down. But there are some cases when a wing
drops that releasing is the best thing to do. BTW when using the CG hook
(when there is little rolling force from the tow), I have found that the use
of rudder to pick up a wing works very well if I rudder (turn) towards the
wing that drops. When the ship is forced to turn in the direction of the
dropping wing, the ship will roll to bring the wing back up. Its like
riding a bicycle: if you happen to start falling to the left, you should
steer to the left, otherwise you will fall over. I'm sure that there are a
lot of pilots out there that don't believe this, but that's OK; this method
works for me.

Bob Salvo

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
news:MBefd.247116$wV.107530@attbi_s54...

"Bob Salvo" wrote in message
...

Using the nose hook will reduce the tendancy for wing drops.

Bob Salvo

Really? Why?

Bill Daniels



  #4  
Old October 26th 04, 04:18 AM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I honestly can't tell any difference. I've made turning takeoffs so as to
be able to stage off the side of an active runway where the fuselage at the
start of the roll was 30 degrees to the runway centerline. My Nimbus 2C
with a CG hook just tracks where I want it to.

I have no interest in adding a nose hook. I don't think it's a big deal.

Like all tailwheel gliders I try to hold the tailwheel down hard until I get
some rudder control then I lift the tail and just steer it where I want to
go. I use the ailerons aggressively right from the start to hold the long
wings level.

The CG hook doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt either. There have been many
millions of winch launches with CG hooks with no systemic problem with wing
dropping.

Bill Daniels

"Bob Salvo" wrote in message
...
Bill,

Not sure, but when I sealed over my nose hook on the H301 and used the CG
hook for aertow, I had more trouble keeping a wing from dropping. I think
when the CG hook is used and there is a wind gust from the side at the

start
of launch, there is more tendancy for the tail to swing, which usually
produces some roll. Using the nose hook, which is well in front of the
wheel, reduces the tendancy for a swinging tail. Another interesting

thing
I found about using the nose hook is that if the ship happens to vere
towards, say the left, and the left wing starts to drop, the pull force of
the tow rope will try to roll the ship, lifting the wing. I believe this

is
because of the larger moment arm (height) between the nose hook and the
pavement. On the other hand, the CG hook is a very close to the pavement,
so there is very little moment force to assist in rolling the ship back to
level. Of course, this could be a disadvantage if the roll force caused

by
the tow is holding the wing down. But there are some cases when a wing
drops that releasing is the best thing to do. BTW when using the CG hook
(when there is little rolling force from the tow), I have found that the

use
of rudder to pick up a wing works very well if I rudder (turn) towards the
wing that drops. When the ship is forced to turn in the direction of the
dropping wing, the ship will roll to bring the wing back up. Its like
riding a bicycle: if you happen to start falling to the left, you should
steer to the left, otherwise you will fall over. I'm sure that there are

a
lot of pilots out there that don't believe this, but that's OK; this

method
works for me.

Bob Salvo

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
news:MBefd.247116$wV.107530@attbi_s54...

"Bob Salvo" wrote in message
...

Using the nose hook will reduce the tendancy for wing drops.

Bob Salvo

Really? Why?

Bill Daniels




  #5  
Old October 26th 04, 06:37 AM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Daniels wrote:
I honestly can't tell any difference. I've made turning takeoffs so as to
be able to stage off the side of an active runway where the fuselage at the
start of the roll was 30 degrees to the runway centerline. My Nimbus 2C
with a CG hook just tracks where I want it to.

I have no interest in adding a nose hook. I don't think it's a big deal.

Like all tailwheel gliders I try to hold the tailwheel down hard until I get
some rudder control then I lift the tail and just steer it where I want to
go. I use the ailerons aggressively right from the start to hold the long
wings level.

The CG hook doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt either. There have been many
millions of winch launches with CG hooks with no systemic problem with wing
dropping.


There wouldn't be any with the nose hook, either, since most of the wing
dropping is due to towplane wake which isn't present with a winch, and a
smaller number due to slow acceleration (I'm guessing more winches
provide good acceleration than towplanes).

My experience, and that of many others, is gliders with long wings or
water ballast are less likely to drop a wing, simply because of inertia.

Nose hooks are a proven advantage over CG hooks for aerotow, but not
primarily for wing dropping reasons; of course, the size of the
advantage varies with the glider and the pilot.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA
 




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
Elevator Turbulator tape question JJ Sinclair Soaring 39 October 17th 03 02:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 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.