![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 24/02/2014 02:00, Steve Leonard wrote:
I hear you on the low tow, GC. It is another of those perceptions of "It isn't what we do, so it must be dangerous." Agree that it will change the dynamics involved, as well. Did Australia go to low tow to prevent kiting, or was it for some other reason and that was a side benefit? I know that high tow increases the trim drag on the towplane, and low tow reduces it, so on low powered towplanes, this can be the difference between climbing and not. With America tending to be a land of excess (horsepower in our towplanes), it is seldom an issue. So, I am curious. Was the change made to improve climb rates and you just have not seen kiting events in Australia, or was there a significant kiting problem, and low tow was determined to be a solution? No, I am not being snide or snarky, I do not know and would like ot learn. The change was made well before my time in soaring (at least 30 years ago - in the era where K-6's were just disappearing) but I understand that kiting specifically and easier control on tow generally were the reasons for the change. Certainly, it was nothing to do with climb rates. Like the Western US and South Africa, Australia experiences strong, sharp-edged thermals which can be challenging to handle on tow. As Chris's experiments showed, low wing loading gliders are more susceptible to kiting and it was a real problem at the time. Low tow isn't a silver bullet (nothing in aviation is) but it certainly stops these problems becoming accidents in a way that apparently still happens in the UK and US. I believe that mandatory nose hooks for aerotow came in at the same time but I can't confirm that. As Kirk said, nose hook aerotow is probably the more important change but my instructing experience makes me think that both play an important part. I'm sure that what Australia did may well be overkill for the Eastern US and much of Europe but I entered the discussion simply to point out that no electronic solution was needed. A perfectly simple operational change would secure all the safety anyone wanted - if that was the point of the discussion. Otherwise it looked like a solution in search of a problem. ![]() I have nothing useful to contribute on low/high-powered tugs. I've never noticed any difference. I will say that I've never complained of excess power in any aircraft I've flown! GC Eyes and ears open, willing to learn. Steve Leonard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
GC, the GFA put out a safety poster around 30 years ago that actually had
line drawings, of the photos taken of the test I described, all superimposed on one another (if you can find a copy and make it accessible, that would help the discussion). I believe the banning of C of G hooks for aerotowing and the adoption of low tow at about that time were also, at least in part, the result of those tests. I think the banning of C of G hooks is the primary reason for Australia's good record on these sort of accidents, the use of low tow, whilst it may have other benefits does not, in my opinion, contribute significantly, if at all. When the weather improves in the UK and I can get some spare time, I plan to conduct some more tests, with another aircraft alongside to video them. I'll include a kiting departure on a C of G hook from low tow as one of the tests. It is possible to get tow plane upsets resulting from significant glider out of position events when on a nose hook. However they don't happen as fast and there is often time for one or other pilot to release and they don't become irrecoverable in the way that a kiting event is. At 04:17 24 February 2014, GC wrote: On 24/02/2014 02:00, Steve Leonard wrote: I hear you on the low tow, GC. It is another of those perceptions of "It isn't what we do, so it must be dangerous." Agree that it will change the dynamics involved, as well. Did Australia go to low tow to prevent kiting, or was it for some other reason and that was a side benefit? I know that high tow increases the trim drag on the towplane, and low tow reduces it, so on low powered towplanes, this can be the difference between climbing and not. With America tending to be a land of excess (horsepower in our towplanes), it is seldom an issue. So, I am curious. Was the change made to improve climb rates and you just have not seen kiting events in Australia, or was there a significant kiting problem, and low tow was determined to be a solution? No, I am not being snide or snarky, I do not know and would like ot learn. The change was made well before my time in soaring (at least 30 years ago - in the era where K-6's were just disappearing) but I understand that kiting specifically and easier control on tow generally were the reasons for the change. Certainly, it was nothing to do with climb rates. Like the Western US and South Africa, Australia experiences strong, sharp-edged thermals which can be challenging to handle on tow. As Chris's experiments showed, low wing loading gliders are more susceptible to kiting and it was a real problem at the time. Low tow isn't a silver bullet (nothing in aviation is) but it certainly stops these problems becoming accidents in a way that apparently still happens in the UK and US. I believe that mandatory nose hooks for aerotow came in at the same time but I can't confirm that. As Kirk said, nose hook aerotow is probably the more important change but my instructing experience makes me think that both play an important part. I'm sure that what Australia did may well be overkill for the Eastern US and much of Europe but I entered the discussion simply to point out that no electronic solution was needed. A perfectly simple operational change would secure all the safety anyone wanted - if that was the point of the discussion. Otherwise it looked like a solution in search of a problem. ![]() I have nothing useful to contribute on low/high-powered tugs. I've never noticed any difference. I will say that I've never complained of excess power in any aircraft I've flown! GC Eyes and ears open, willing to learn. Steve Leonard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
inReach website not updating track automatically | Eric Greenwell[_4_] | Soaring | 4 | September 23rd 13 09:59 PM |
Compare/Contrast: CG hook on aerotow vs. CG hook on winch | son_of_flubber | Soaring | 37 | June 4th 12 10:40 PM |
TOST E85 RELEASES | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | March 6th 05 04:21 PM |
Cumulus releases version 1.2.1 | André Somers | Soaring | 0 | March 2nd 05 09:58 PM |
NSA releases EC-121 Liberty tapes: no smoking gun | Mike Weeks | Military Aviation | 0 | July 9th 03 05:06 AM |