New GFH

I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.

If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.

Morgan


On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.







Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)







But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.







...62ft radius, give me a break.







The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.



Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.

I totally agree with you.

Its just frustrating to see them not spell out the *big* assumption in their writeup. I'd be happy with a disclaimer specifying the assumption and pointers to more advanced texts whenever they are 'dumbing down' the concepts.

Britton

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:15:28 PM UTC-4, Morgan wrote:
I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.



If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.



Morgan





On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:



Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.















Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)















But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.















...62ft radius, give me a break.















The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.







Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.

The biggest thing I learned this season was to bank more sharply when thermaling. HUGE difference.

On Thursday, September 26, 2013 8:11:15 AM UTC-5, James Lee wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:15:28 PM UTC-4, Morgan wrote:

I can't disagree about the state of science and math, but this is supposed to be someones first introduction to soaring concepts. You don't need the math to grasp the concepts that they are pushing. Pick up an advanced soaring book to look for optimizations and details. Given that most of our bank angle assessment is seat of the pants, eyeball the diagonal screws on the panel, knowing the math behind optimal bank angle, speed and thermal strength seems a bit pedantic.







If we could just get more people to actually get closer to 45 degree banks we would be doing a good thing for soaring as people would have better flights and climbs.







Morgan











On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:54:28 PM UTC-7, chipsoars wrote:



On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:10:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:







Ugh, it still has the simpleton explanation of radius of the turn (fig 3-29). While fine for casual conversations around the coffee table with non-flying friends, it does a disservice to the flying population.































Would be proper for them to list their mathematical assumptions from basic Physics101 (e.g. assuming you can stay in a horizontal plane...)































But we all know we *don't* stay in the horizontal plane when turning. Show me the dependence on the cosine of the angle, the lift coefficient for best endurance, the speed, day-type, wing-loading, aspect ratio, wing efficiency, etc. Then show me thermal profiles to backout the *best* bank angle for maximum climb rate. You know, stuff that glider pilots care about.































...62ft radius, give me a break.































The American Soaring Handbook at least gave the reader the knowledge/education to speak about our craft intelligently. This GPH writing style/method is geared towards... well... sadly, people that don't want to really understand a subject.















Considering the state of science and math education in this country, it would be a waste of space. I do agree that anyone who truly wants to understand the sport should understand the science.



The biggest thing I learned this season was to bank more sharply when thermaling. HUGE difference.

You certainly meant to say more steeply, didn't you?