Future Club Training Gliders

At 16:07 19 September 2010, kirk.stant wrote:
On Sep 18, 6:52=A0pm, "
wrote:

Please explain further........how is the correct landing procedure for
a 2-33 going to result in a high energy landing in a Grob?

IMHO....the correct landing procedure for a 2-33 (low energy, slow
speed, nose high, tail low, etc) will result in a similar low energy
landing in a Grob..........this would be a short runway landing, with
little or no need for brakes......

Cookie

So, when you are teaching landings to a student in a 2-33, do you
first sit him in the front seat, level the wings, then hold the nose
up until the tailwheel is on the ground and say "this is your landing
attitude"? Do you do that in a G-103? Didn't think so. Where that
tailwheel is relative to the ground is the difference. The landing
angle of attack is probably about the same, but a student who learns
to land on the main in a 2-33, nice and slow, but never touching the
tailwheel, then who transfers that technique to the G-103, is a prime
candidate for high energy landing problems. It's not a killer problem
- but it needs to be taught correctly!

Kirk

I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them.
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

On Sep 19, 9:30*am, Don Johnstone wrote
:
I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them..
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

What is interesting is when you compare 4 different gliders: With a
2-33 (nosedragger), you have to pull the nose up until the tail
touches, then lower it until it's at the correct landing attitude (you
establish the range of available touchdown angle of attack). With a
Blanik (taildragger), you have to raise the tail a little bit to show
the desired touchdown angle. With a K-21 (nosedragger), you pull the
nose up until the tail is on the ground, and finally, with a DG-1000
(taildragger), you just level the wings.

Again, it's the gear configuration that is important, and why it's
important is something the student needs to understand.

Cheers

Kirk

On Sep 19, 1:35*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:30*am, Don Johnstone wrote
:

I did exactly that when teaching students to land a G103 except I would
push down on the tail so that they could see the picture in front of them.
The correct attitude is that where the main wheel and tailwheel touch the
ground at the same time. The glider should then be kept running on the
main and tailwheel for as long as possible, directional control is lost
when the glider goes nosewheel down.

What is interesting is when you compare 4 different gliders: *With a
2-33 (nosedragger), you have to pull the nose up until the tail
touches, then lower it until it's at the correct landing attitude (you
establish the range of available touchdown angle of attack). *With a
Blanik (taildragger), you have to raise the tail a little bit to show
the desired touchdown angle. *With a K-21 (nosedragger), you pull the
nose up until the tail is on the ground, and finally, with a DG-1000
(taildragger), you just level the wings.

Again, it's the gear configuration that is important, and why it's
important is something the student needs to understand.

Cheers

Kirk

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

Cookie

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

Cookie

A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
first) touchdown. You cannot teach this in a 2-33. The euro's laugh
at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

If you feel the need to comment so strongly to this thread you may
wish to reveal your real identity. Otherwise we'll have to assume you
are Lennie the Lurker (and if you don't know who this is, you haven't
been in soaring, or at least on RAS, long enough to comment on these
issues)

Kevin Christner wrote:
A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
first) touchdown. You cannot teach this in a 2-33. The euro's laugh
at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

I followed this discussion for a while now and frankly, I don't
understand all the fuss. I have never been shown any paritcular landing
attitude, because this would be meaningless as every glider is
different. I've just been told to flare that beast, and keep it flying
as long as possible until it ceases to fly. Ths means increasing the
angle of attack as the speed decays until the glider falls out of the
air. Properly built gliders will do so in a two point attitude, some
more accurate, some less accurate. That's all I've been taught and
that's how I've been doing it for years. Frankly, I couldn't even tell
you the landing attitude.

At 16:03 20 September 2010, John Smith wrote:
I followed this discussion for a while now and frankly, I don't
understand all the fuss. I have never been shown any paritcular landing
attitude, because this would be meaningless as every glider is
different. I've just been told to flare that beast, and keep it flying
as long as possible until it ceases to fly. Ths means increasing the
angle of attack as the speed decays until the glider falls out of the
air. Properly built gliders will do so in a two point attitude, some
more accurate, some less accurate. That's all I've been taught and
that's how I've been doing it for years. Frankly, I couldn't even tell

you the landing attitude.


At last a sensible post on this subject. The way all gliders should be
landed.

On Sep 20, 10:49*am, Kevin Christner
wrote:
OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

Cookie

A proper low energy landing involves a two point (or arguably tail
first) touchdown. *You cannot teach this in a 2-33. *The euro's laugh
at us because a not insignificant amount of owners of the newest glass
ships still can't do a proper low energy landing.

If you feel the need to comment so strongly to this thread you may
wish to reveal your real identity. *Otherwise we'll have to assume you
are Lennie the Lurker (and if you don't know who this is, you haven't
been in soaring, or at least on RAS, long enough to comment on these
issues)

I agree that a proper low energy landing in MOST gliders is two point
or there about.

Although the 2-33 does not usually land two point, I still can, do,
and have taught low energy landings in 2-33, and the same techniques
carry on to other gliders, with minimum fuss...I do not allow my
students in the 2-33 to do "fly it on landings".

It has been my experience that those who land a 2-33 properly, land
any glider properly. I have also seen glider pilots who never flew a
2-33 but still manage to land improperly. Its not the glider....its
the pilot!!

Owners of the newest glass ships who can't land them properly, should
seek additional training....but this is a "pilot problem" not an
"aircraft problem".

My whole point is in response to the post that implied that a guy
wrecked a Grob, because he learned in a 2-33.......This is a far
fetched conclusion at best...........The guy wrecked the Grob because
he didn't know how to land, period, regardless of the aircraft.

I'm not a huge fan of the 2-33......but please don't blame the poor
glider for things that are not its fault.......

BTW.....I've seen some of those "Euros" fly ........Some are great
pilots, but they have their share of pilots who can't land
too............

As for your second paragraph:

My name is Bob Cook, everyone who knows me, knows me as
"Cookie"......To anybody who doesn't know me, it doesn't matter squat
what my name is.......Now if you want to comapare "years in gliding"
or hours, or experience or whatever, we can go tit for tat........but
that is meaningless..........

Cookie

wrote in message
...
snip

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto the
ground. Flying on is not considered good as it's all too easy to end up
airborne again if there are lumps and bumps, and the average grass strip or
field usually has plenty of those. Landing in less than 200m is not hard in
just about any glass ship so long as approach speed control was good and
there was at least 1/2 airbrake used. The touchdown is either main wheel
and tail wheel/skid at the same time or tail slightly first. Then it's
right back with the stick (which is just about where it will be if the
landing was really held off) to help keep the ship on the ground, and also
to keep the tail wheel/skid planted as long as possible on things like K21s
to aid directional stability if there is a cross-wind.

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

On 9/20/2010 11:02 AM, Surfer! wrote:

wrote in message
...
snip

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto the
ground.
Descriptive details snipped

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

What you've described is *my* (U.S.) idea of a low-energy landing.

As to much of this discussion, kids can you say, "Nuance is difficult to
describe in short paragraphs!" :-) My own take is: KISS (Keep It Simple,
Stupid). The principles *are* simple...the devil's in the descriptive details.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I've overlooked an oddball-configured
glider somewhere, but 'the vast majority of gliders' (including 2-33s, even
those withOUT spring tailwheels) will perform nice, low-energy touchdowns if
successfully landed about an inch in the air...meaning that if they quit
flying 'way up there', nothing's going to get hurt or broken from the fall.
Actual fuselage attitude falls out in the wash...

True for nose-draggers and taildraggers.

Guessing wildly - and not excusing failure to practice low-energy technique
when conditions permit - perhaps one reason some western U.S. glider pilots
rationalize skill in performing low-energy landings isn't 'crucial' is because
it's the norm in these parts for strong, gusting (often, cross)winds to be
present unless landing near dusk, away from any thunderstorms. One's view of
the desirability of a fully held-off landing (especially on paved runways)
probably varies inversely proportionally with the strength of the gusting
crosswind!

My personal record for touchdown speed was a 65+ knot, wheeled-on touchdown
(75+ knot final to maintain a 'reasonable crab angle') in a direct crosswind
of 25-35 knots onto the only (narrow, sans-lights) pavement around - it was
that or hassle with an OFL and a post-sundown retrieve in the same winds (from
a distant T-storm)...15-meter, flapped, no-spoilers ship. About 20-feet of
lateral downwind displacement occurred in the roll-out, despite
(post-touchdown) full downwind rudder, a negative-flap-planted tail wheel,
maximum wheel braking and (eventually) an intentionally dragging downwind tip.
A held-off landing under the circumstances wasn't seriously considered.

Bob W.

Originally Posted by Surfer![_2_]

...
snip

OK.....But the same BASIC technique works for all these
gliders............LOW ENERGY LANDING.......

This is a fascinating and slightly scary discussion.

I was taught in the UK the BGA way, and the only kind of landing I have been
taught is the fully-held off one - ultimately the glider mushes onto th
ground. Flying on is not considered good as it's all too easy to end up
airborne again if there are lumps and bumps, and the average grass strip or
field usually has plenty of those. Landing in less than 200m is not hard in
just about any glass ship so long as approach speed control was good and
there was at least 1/2 airbrake used. The touchdown is either main wheel
and tail wheel/skid at the same time or tail slightly first. Then it's
right back with the stick (which is just about where it will be if the
landing was really held off) to help keep the ship on the ground, and also
to keep the tail wheel/skid planted as long as possible on things like K21s
to aid directional stability if there is a cross-wind.

Is this what US folks mean by a low-energy landing? If not, what is meant?

Same way I was taught to land. Works ok. Last OFL was in a Nimbus 3d into a 150m long field over a farm fence. Got it down and stopped in 135m. Duo x that landed before me about 5m less. The nose did touch the ground from some heavy braking at the end of the ground roll but only dirt/mud to clean off. In the picture the crooked trace is the Duo being pushed to the side as I was landing

Colin