A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Landing with reduced airbrake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 16th 18, 03:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your glide slope and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up your initial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either option seems like a bad idea for students.

Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a correct approach, not the other way around.

Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you are way more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra" glide to recover by closing the airbrakes.

To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not the use of airbrakes.
  #2  
Old May 16th 18, 11:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
George Haeh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

The DG-1000 Club seems a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences. Having the fixed gear as far down as the retractable version would impose a significant drag penalty, but having it higher up imposes a higher takeoff and touchdown speed.

The electric gear version can fail to come down. The flight manual recommends practicing the emergency gear down mechanism periodically. I know of one gear up landing where the Instructor had not practiced the emergency gear down.
  #3  
Old May 17th 18, 02:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard McLean[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

On Thursday, 17 May 2018 06:58:54 UTC+8, George Haeh wrote:
The DG-1000 Club seems a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences. Having the fixed gear as far down as the retractable version would impose a significant drag penalty, but having it higher up imposes a higher takeoff and touchdown speed.

The electric gear version can fail to come down. The flight manual recommends practicing the emergency gear down mechanism periodically. I know of one gear up landing where the Instructor had not practiced the emergency gear down.


This is what I think too - the original design had the high main-wheel but people wanted easier cockpit access so they gave it the lower main/nose wheel combination .. which has compromised the landing attitude. All well & good, but it does now expose the tail-wheel to some serious abuse by students! I guess any "do everything" performance glider is going to be compromised to some extent - in this case as a club ab-initio trainer. I still think the best mitigation (as an instructor) is to actively limit the rate of descent if required.
  #4  
Old May 17th 18, 02:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard McLean[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your glide slope and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up your initial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either option seems like a bad idea for students.

Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a correct approach, not the other way around.

Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you are way more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra" glide to recover by closing the airbrakes.

To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not the use of airbrakes.


Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal but better than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the reasons. Lots of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up your original aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.
  #5  
Old May 17th 18, 07:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:43:09 PM UTC+12, Richard McLean wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your glide slope and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up your initial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either option seems like a bad idea for students.

Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a correct approach, not the other way around.

Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you are way more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra" glide to recover by closing the airbrakes.

To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not the use of airbrakes.


Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal but better than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the reasons. Lots of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up your original aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.


I'd think if you were so high turning final that you can't get back on to a standard half brake approach by, say, 100m before crossing the fence then you've well and truly stuffed up the circuit. Especially in something with airbrakes as powerful as a DG1000 or Grob. You definitely should never be planning to carry full brake all the way down the approach ... that leave nothing in reserve for the unexpected.
  #6  
Old May 17th 18, 09:48 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathon May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

At 06:36 17 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:43:09 PM UTC+12, Richard McLean wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your glide

slop=
e and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up your
in=
itial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either option
seem=
s like a bad idea for students.
=20
Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a correct

a=
pproach, not the other way around.
=20
Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you are

way
=
more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra" glide to
rec=
over by closing the airbrakes.
=20
To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not

the
=
use of airbrakes.
=20
Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal but

bet=
ter than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the reasons.
Lots=
of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up your
o=
riginal aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.

I'd think if you were so high turning final that you can't get back on to
a=
standard half brake approach by, say, 100m before crossing the fence

then
=
you've well and truly stuffed up the circuit. Especially in something

with
=
airbrakes as powerful as a DG1000 or Grob. You definitely should never be
p=
lanning to carry full brake all the way down the approach ... that leave
no=
thing in reserve for the unexpected.


Trick one
I have not flown the DG1001 neo yet but I have quite a lot of time in the
original DG1000,you need a step to get people in,if that is the angle for
2point landing them the newer versions going to land tail wheel first .

I have done hundreds of trial flights in an early DG500 that everyone said
was "over braked" ,in fact it could be .But as all I wanted was to get the
punters down safe without a hard landing I tend to add 5kns and gently fly
it on, on the main wheel.
The trouble with that is its not the correct method to teach landing to
pupils.

As I said tricky
My advice would be to buy a K21 or Duo xl ,they fly as you would expect.




  #7  
Old May 18th 18, 02:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+12, Jonathon May wrote:
At 06:36 17 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:43:09 PM UTC+12, Richard McLean wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your glide

slop=
e and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up your
in=
itial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either option
seem=
s like a bad idea for students.
=20
Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a correct

a=
pproach, not the other way around.
=20
Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you are

way
=
more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra" glide to
rec=
over by closing the airbrakes.
=20
To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not

the
=
use of airbrakes.
=20
Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal but

bet=
ter than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the reasons.
Lots=
of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up your
o=
riginal aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.

I'd think if you were so high turning final that you can't get back on to
a=
standard half brake approach by, say, 100m before crossing the fence

then
=
you've well and truly stuffed up the circuit. Especially in something

with
=
airbrakes as powerful as a DG1000 or Grob. You definitely should never be
p=
lanning to carry full brake all the way down the approach ... that leave
no=
thing in reserve for the unexpected.


Trick one
I have not flown the DG1001 neo yet but I have quite a lot of time in the
original DG1000,you need a step to get people in,if that is the angle for
2point landing them the newer versions going to land tail wheel first .

I have done hundreds of trial flights in an early DG500 that everyone said
was "over braked" ,in fact it could be .But as all I wanted was to get the
punters down safe without a hard landing I tend to add 5kns and gently fly
it on, on the main wheel.
The trouble with that is its not the correct method to teach landing to
pupils.

As I said tricky
My advice would be to buy a K21 or Duo xl ,they fly as you would expect.


Not necessary. All you need to do is fly close to the ground and gradually slow and increase the pitch until you are in the same attitude as you would be on the ground.

Assuming you have levelled out at the correct height for your undercarriage length it all works out just the same as any other glider. Main wheel is skimming just a few inches above the ground, once the AOA gets to the point that the tail wheel touches gently you physically can't increase the pitch more, and do the main will gently drop on.

Whether the glider is actually "stalled" at that point or not is irrelevant..

If you level out a DG1000 Club at the same height as you would a standard DG1000, and then slow until it stalls, then you're going to be dropping on hard from a foot up no matter what you do. Know how it looks out the window of your glider when it's on the ground!
  #8  
Old May 18th 18, 03:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Richard McLean[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Landing with reduced airbrake

At 01:40 18 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+12, Jonathon May

wrote:
At 06:36 17 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:43:09 PM UTC+12, Richard

McLean wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr.

wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your

glide
slop=3D
e and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up

your
in=3D
itial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either

option
seem=3D
s like a bad idea for students.
=3D20
Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a

correc=
t
a=3D
pproach, not the other way around.
=3D20
Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you

are
way
=3D
more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra"

glide to
rec=3D
over by closing the airbrakes.
=3D20
To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not

the
=3D
use of airbrakes.
=3D20
Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal

but
bet=3D
ter than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the

reasons.
Lots=3D
of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up

you=
r
o=3D
riginal aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.

I'd think if you were so high turning final that you can't get back

on
t=
o
a=3D
standard half brake approach by, say, 100m before crossing the

fence
then
=3D
you've well and truly stuffed up the circuit. Especially in something

with
=3D
airbrakes as powerful as a DG1000 or Grob. You definitely should

never
b=
e
p=3D
lanning to carry full brake all the way down the approach ... that

leave
no=3D
thing in reserve for the unexpected.

=20
Trick one
I have not flown the DG1001 neo yet but I have quite a lot of time in

the
original DG1000,you need a step to get people in,if that is the

angle
f=
or
2point landing them the newer versions going to land tail wheel first

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kestrel 19 Airbrake Mod [email protected] Soaring 1 January 13th 14 06:06 PM
asw19 airbrake kit steve[_2_] Soaring 2 April 7th 11 08:32 PM
LS3a Airbrake question [email protected] Soaring 5 April 29th 08 03:10 AM
airbrake position while tied outside CK Soaring 18 January 19th 04 02:34 PM
airbrake question miso Military Aviation 17 December 4th 03 04:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.