Is there a nose hook modification for a standard cirrus

My ASW-24 had a CG hook only, and more than once I had to release early on tow, usually a combination involving one or more of the following factors, of bad wing run, water ballast and X-wind. I have never had to release on tow for any nose hook equipped 18 meter birds ( have owned two) or the Nimbus 4 even at all up max weight.

All this anecdotal evidence is pretty useless. We might guess that something might or might not happened if there is nose hook but in the end it is just that. A guess.

On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:49:48 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
All this anecdotal evidence is pretty useless. We might guess that something might or might not happened if there is nose hook but in the end it is just that. A guess.

I wonder if you caught the irony in your declaration. I would offer that multiple parties with similar experiences is a statiscally valid trend.

On Sunday, 15 October 2017 20:19:57 UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 5:49:48 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
All this anecdotal evidence is pretty useless. We might guess that something might or might not happened if there is nose hook but in the end it is just that. A guess.

I wonder if you caught the irony in your declaration. I would offer that multiple parties with similar experiences is a statiscally valid trend.

Statistical data would be like "we have a group of Std.Cirrus gliders with nosehook and similar group with C/G hook, and we can say that this group exhibits XX accidents during tow per 100000 hrs, and other group YY accidents per 100000 hrs". Or something to that effect.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:17:26 -0700 (PDT), krasw
wrote:


Statistical data would be like "we have a group of Std.Cirrus gliders with nosehook and similar group with C/G hook, and we can say that this group exhibits XX accidents during tow per 100000 hrs, and other group YY accidents per 100000 hrs". Or something to that effect.

100% agree.

For 25 years my club has had two DG-300: One with nose hook and one
without. We had exactly one incidence where a DG-300 got the tow plane
out of control by pulling up its tail.

It was the one with the nose hook.

So, Andreas, do we conclude the the physics and maths of tow hook placements are wrong or that there is always someone who sometime can manage to do something especially stupid?

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:47:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So, Andreas, do we conclude the the physics and maths of tow hook placements are wrong or that there is always someone who sometime can manage to do something especially stupid?

Well...
let me put it this way:

As you probably know, the test flights that proved that the nose-up
momentum of a CG hook have been made by a German Akaflieg (project
pilot was a friend of mine, btw). And of course these flight tests
(using a Ka-8) proved that using a CG hook indeed made a huge
difference.


But:
Based upon these flight tests Germany introduced a law that aerotows
on CG hooks were only allowed if the pilot had recent aerotow
experience (3 aerotows during the last 6 months), and of course new
gliders had to be equipped with a nose hook.

Many people assumed that these limitations would affect aerotow safety
in a positive way. But it turned out that there was no influence of
these new rules on aerotow safety, not was there ever a hard
statistical proof that gliders with a CG hook had a higher aerotow
incident rate than gliders with nose hook (the odd man out being some
notorious gliders with problematic geometry and CG hook, especially
the Ka-6).


So last year this law was removed.


My conclusion:
In theory and flight test the maths and physics are correct, but in
practics they are not related to incident numbers.



p.s.
I usually fly an open class double seater with only a CG hook, and my
club's ASK-21 and Duo Discus XL. When teaching upset aertow situations
in the ASK-21 I never noticed any useful stabilizing effect of the
nose hook, nor did Iever in the Duo Discus. The same goes for the
DG-300 with and without nose hook which I had many chances to compare.

Please forgive my unfamiliarity with kiting, but can someone explain what goes so wrong that a pilot does not release as soon as he/she loses slight of tow plane. In 1500 plus hours of flying out of the mountains in the western US, including many tows out of Minden through the rotor to the laminar.. For the life of me I cannot see how a glider can kite so bad that they kill a tow pilot. Only once while low in the White Mountains, have I even run out of elevator control versus force of nature. Out of Minden twice I have had to release on tow in rotor, just because I lost slight of tow plane. What goes so wrong in a kitting accident that the glider cannot control the kite nor releases as soon as the tow goes out of sight under the nose? I am not being flippant or insensitive, I truly am not sure how a pilot gets into such a kitting.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 6:29:08 PM UTC-7, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:17:26 -0700 (PDT), krasw
wrote:


Statistical data would be like "we have a group of Std.Cirrus gliders with nosehook and similar group with C/G hook, and we can say that this group exhibits XX accidents during tow per 100000 hrs, and other group YY accidents per 100000 hrs". Or something to that effect.

100% agree.

For 25 years my club has had two DG-300: One with nose hook and one
without. We had exactly one incidence where a DG-300 got the tow plane
out of control by pulling up its tail.

It was the one with the nose hook.

On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:29:08 PM UTC-5, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:17:26 -0700 (PDT), krasw
wrote:


Statistical data would be like "we have a group of Std.Cirrus gliders with nosehook and similar group with C/G hook, and we can say that this group exhibits XX accidents during tow per 100000 hrs, and other group YY accidents per 100000 hrs". Or something to that effect.

100% agree.

For 25 years my club has had two DG-300: One with nose hook and one
without. We had exactly one incidence where a DG-300 got the tow plane
out of control by pulling up its tail.

It was the one with the nose hook.

Andreas, pre Newtonian physics (Galileo) suggest that the nose hook is providing more stability, no non-stochastic statistics necessary to prove that! Why is it so hard to accept that you're better off with the tow line attached to a point far forward of the cg? Anecdotal stories are BS.

Le mardi 17 octobre 2017 16:13:50 UTC+2, a écritÂ*:
On Monday, October 16, 2017 at 8:29:08 PM UTC-5, Andreas Maurer wrote:
100000 hrs". Or something to that effect.

100% agree.

For 25 years my club has had two DG-300: One with nose hook and one
without. We had exactly one incidence where a DG-300 got the tow plane
out of control by pulling up its tail.

It was the one with the nose hook.

Andreas, pre Newtonian physics (Galileo) suggest that the nose hook is providing more stability, no non-stochastic statistics necessary to prove that! Why is it so hard to accept that you're better off with the tow line attached to a point far forward of the cg? Anecdotal stories are BS.

Of course a nose hook provides a little bit more of stability.
Now, if you *need* this little delta to stay safe, you shouldn't be flying solo in the first place.