![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
John,
The Duo Tom Knauff was flying when we did our full boards dive off was a turbo version and thus heavier than a non-motorized ship. The DG-1000 I was flying had heavier pilots, so the payload was about the same. We agreed to this test before task opening on a day we had some extra time, because this notion that the Duo had inferior speed brakes had been floating around for some time and I wanted to see if it held any water. I joined up on Tom's right wing, less than a span away, and he pushed over, deploying full brakes and pushing the speed up to 80 knots. In this stabilized condition I had full brakes deployed in the 1000 and did not fall back as one might expect of a ship with better braking. As to the matter of tail weights, wheel brakes and gear configuration there are compromises with both approaches (long and short main gear). The old Duo's short gear was simpler, lighter and farther aft. This makes for easier ground handling but requires a nose wheel to handle max braking. The longer gear of the Duo X and DG 1000 keeps the gear doors cleaner, but is more likely to go on the nose if the brake is good. Speaking of wheel brake effectiveness, I've spent more time adjusting, bleeding, modifying and cursing the Duo brake than all other maintenance matters combined. Maybe my expectations are too high after years of flawless performance from Schleicher's Cleveland disc brake systems. Karl Striedieck "John Smith" wrote in message ... Karl Striedieck wrote: Is the 20 meter DG-1000 authorized for acro? With 20m it's authorized for "basic" acro, which means Loops, Turns and erect Spins. No rolls and no negative g. With 18m it's authorized for full aerobatics. If it is I'm curious about the reason. Both ships were designed to meet JAR standards regarding strength and dive brake performance. Because the dive brakes are *not* of equal strenght. I've never compared side by side, but the DG1000 definitely allows for a much more sloppy approach. (Not that I would advocate sloppy flying!) I've read that you compared them and think both are the same, I definitely don't share your opinion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fun with trailling edge dive brakes | Scott Elhardt | Soaring | 16 | May 9th 14 02:52 AM |
Polar with spoilers extended? | Tim Taylor | Soaring | 85 | October 29th 07 09:16 AM |
High on Final, Summary; was Polar with spoilers extended? | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 4 | October 27th 07 07:22 AM |
Extended GPX Schema | Paul Tomblin | Products | 0 | September 25th 04 02:44 AM |
L-13 Spoilers | Scott | Soaring | 2 | August 27th 03 06:08 AM |