DG Differences...

Greg Arnold wrote:
g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
Marc in a feild landing you would touch down at 60mph?

I would NOT touch down at 60mph (I must have had one of those special
unflapped gliders that stalled less than 60)? I did say low energy and
nose high. Im not a math guy but isnt energy=velocity squared?

Snip

What speed do you land at in order to stop in 130 feet?

For short, obstructed-approach, field-landings, you can't have too much
disposable drag. The shortest non-abbie-normal landing I ever witnessed
was from the cockpit of my HP-14, on an unpaved, alluvial-fan airfield,
in a 5-knot breeze, at 5300' msl. After nailing the approach (easy to
do with high drag) and a tail-first flare, I paced off the main-wheel
roll at 3 fuselage lengths...accomplished w/o nose-dragging braking.

I have no idea what actual touchdown speed was, though the last part of
final was flown at 40 knots indicated (utterly benign conditions, and,
well above indicated stall speed). Point being, lots of drag and lift
can't be beat for steep, slow approaches, and short landing rolls.
Personally, I find high-drag ships much easier to consistently land than
low-drag ones.

Regards,
Bob W.

P.S. Kinetic Energy = 1/2*Mass*(Velocity*Velocity), so touchdown energy
is proportional to velocity squared. Your wheel brake knows only
velocity-squared in energy dissipation terms (though aerodynamic drag is
its friend early-on in the landing roll).

*sigh*

Well, its all turned out to be moot:

The DG-202 is too far away for me to go look at it this week, and the
DG-300 sold. :-(

--Noel

On 2008-04-19 20:12:21 -0400, "noel.wade" said:

*sigh*

Well, its all turned out to be moot:

The DG-202 is too far away for me to go look at it this week, and the
DG-300 sold. :-(

--Noel

There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com

There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com

And I'm not interested in it. The DG-200 is a fine machine; but it
doesn't have the automatic hookups that a DG-300 has, and it doesn't
have a one-piece canopy like a 202 or 300. Finally, the price isn't
that different from the going rate for an ASW-20, and the ASW has
somewhat higher performance than the 200.

Thanks, though,

--Noel

noel.wade wrote:
There's a DG-200 listed for sale on wingsandwheels.com

And I'm not interested in it. The DG-200 is a fine machine; but it
doesn't have the automatic hookups that a DG-300 has, and it doesn't
have a one-piece canopy like a 202 or 300. Finally, the price isn't
that different from the going rate for an ASW-20, and the ASW has
somewhat higher performance than the 200.

But not enough to notice unless you are a top racing pilot.


Thanks, though,

--Noel

On Apr 19, 9:44 pm, Greg Arnold wrote:
But not enough to notice unless you are a top racing pilot.


Its not just about what one pilot would notice. Its about market
effects and perception. The DG-200 is not perceived by the market as
being desireable at the same level as the DG-300 or an ASW-20.

I'm looking at this from the standpoint of safety, market-value,
resale speed, trailer quality, finish quality, age of manufacture -
all in addition to pure performance.

I am incredibly thorough in my research about gliders (some might say
I'm obsessed) - and the DG-300 and ASW-20 floated to the top for a
variety of reasons. Some of which are mainstream reasons, and some of
which are personal preferences.

Now if only I'd win the lottery so I could just buy a brand new
glider... *grin*

--Noel