poor lateral control on a slow tow?

What do you expect from the juvenile mentality of the top gear presenters?
I'll bet they switched the explosive bolts for standard ones.

Derrick.

At 16:40 06 January 2011, Doug Greenwell wrote:
At 16:11 06 January 2011, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:09:39 +0000, Doug Greenwell
wrote:


There's a chapter in Eric Brown's book 'Wings of the Weird &
Wonderful' in which he describes flight tests of the GAL 56 flying
wing
glider in 1946. This was a 28deg swept wing with an aspect ratio of
5.8
towed by a Spitfire IX* (!!!) to 20000ft (!!).

Coooooooooool.

every tug pilots dream ... wonder what the climb rate was like!




He describes the opposite effect, with a very strong (often
uncontrollable) nose-up pitch on take-off - this was thought to be due
to
ground effect. In this case the tug span was similar (37ft) to the
glider
span (45ft), so the wake/wing interaction would be different.

Definitely. I think that the slipstream and the turbulence of that
huge propellor might have an influence, too.


Possibly - he had trouble getting the nose down on landing too.


Interestingly he also reports that the GAL56 could be flown hands-free
on
the tow - unless the tug slipstream was entered, in which case all
lateral
and longitudinal control was lost. Robert Kronfield was later killed
spinning this aircraft.

Seems like some gliders actually stabilize themselves behind a tow
plane.

Here's an example of a free-flight test of a space shuttle model that
flew well in aerotow, but worse in free flight.


Ladies and gents, Great Britains only serious contribution to
spaceflight - the Reliant Shuttle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdrlWR-yFM



Andreas



That's a bit unfair ... we did manage one satellite into orbit on Black
Arrow