Landing with reduced airbrake

I guess the difference between the DG1000 with the tall gear and the DG 1000 with the short gear is similar to the difference between the Duo Discus with the short gear and the newer Duo X or XL with the tall gear. The minimum approach speed is a few knots faster with the short gear.

I regularly fly the original Duo, the Duo with the X wing and the short gear, a Duo X, and occasionaly the XL. The tall gear is the easiest.

Flying the short gear gliders after you're used to the tall gear you have to be careful not to land slow with the main still half a meter in the air.

Landing any of them like you're meant to (min speed all the way to the holdoff) and they're fine. Let the speed decay on short finals and the short gear will punish you worse than the tall gear.

I've flown the tall gear DG1000 a lot and like it. I haven't flown the short gear DG1000, but I have flown the DG500 and 505 with the short gear. I think the difference is comparable.

Tall is more forgiving and just generally better. Short lets old people get in the glider easier.

On Friday, 18 May 2018 14:00:42 UTC+8, Phil Plane wrote:
I guess the difference between the DG1000 with the tall gear and the DG 1000 with the short gear is similar to the difference between the Duo Discus with the short gear and the newer Duo X or XL with the tall gear. The minimum approach speed is a few knots faster with the short gear.

I regularly fly the original Duo, the Duo with the X wing and the short gear, a Duo X, and occasionaly the XL. The tall gear is the easiest.

Flying the short gear gliders after you're used to the tall gear you have to be careful not to land slow with the main still half a meter in the air..

Landing any of them like you're meant to (min speed all the way to the holdoff) and they're fine. Let the speed decay on short finals and the short gear will punish you worse than the tall gear.

I've flown the tall gear DG1000 a lot and like it. I haven't flown the short gear DG1000, but I have flown the DG500 and 505 with the short gear. I think the difference is comparable.

Tall is more forgiving and just generally better. Short lets old people get in the glider easier.

Thanks for that Phil

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-7, Richard McLean wrote:

You have a couple options to 'soften' the touch/sink rate, but you know those....

1) add a couple knots of approach speed and buy time to feel for(get closer to) ground.
2) lessen spoilers near the ground to lengthen the flaring and 'feel for ground time'.

Neither of those teaches what you really seek, which is -- Identification of the chosen attitude.

One technique I find helpful for students to reinforce or identify ANY desired touching attitude is to seat the student with closed canopy on the runway threshold (or adjacent). Have a helper level the tip, and you walk to the empennage. Using a hand on the empennage centerline, you can rocking chair the glider to show nose-low attitude (forward 2-point), nose-level attitude for liftoff and your described almost-preferred touchdown attitude, and the nose-high tail-low 2-point attitude.

This rocking chair exercise can be repeated prior to any flight by using your launch helpers. It helps the student define the look -- comparing the panel top or side rails of cockpit to comparative external visual keys.

It doesn't matter what glider is used. The new-pilot trainee needs to 'see' the chosen attitude several times - and contrast it to the 'wrong' attitudes. This is a Cheap and Effective tool to assist a student who might be struggling with the rapidly changing and Brief moments of touchdown finesse..

Good luck to you and the students, with wishes for smooth touches.

Cindy B
Mojave, CA

On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 12:05:28 UTC+8, CindyB wrote:
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 12:25:02 AM UTC-7, Richard McLean wrote:

You have a couple options to 'soften' the touch/sink rate, but you know those....

1) add a couple knots of approach speed and buy time to feel for(get closer to) ground.
2) lessen spoilers near the ground to lengthen the flaring and 'feel for ground time'.

Neither of those teaches what you really seek, which is -- Identification of the chosen attitude.

One technique I find helpful for students to reinforce or identify ANY desired touching attitude is to seat the student with closed canopy on the runway threshold (or adjacent). Have a helper level the tip, and you walk to the empennage. Using a hand on the empennage centerline, you can rocking chair the glider to show nose-low attitude (forward 2-point), nose-level attitude for liftoff and your described almost-preferred touchdown attitude, and the nose-high tail-low 2-point attitude.

This rocking chair exercise can be repeated prior to any flight by using your launch helpers. It helps the student define the look -- comparing the panel top or side rails of cockpit to comparative external visual keys.

It doesn't matter what glider is used. The new-pilot trainee needs to 'see' the chosen attitude several times - and contrast it to the 'wrong' attitudes. This is a Cheap and Effective tool to assist a student who might be struggling with the rapidly changing and Brief moments of touchdown finesse.

Good luck to you and the students, with wishes for smooth touches.

Cindy B
Mojave, CA

Cheers Cindy.

You're right, the key to avoiding a hard tail-strike is not pulling past the correct landing attitude .. unfortunately I think when a high rate of descent is present the instinct is to keep pulling, hence the focus on addressing the rate of descent. I guess the answer is to address both issues.

Thanks again,

Richard

I am not an instructor, but have done many real life off field landings. I don’t understand why you would be wanting to do landings with full spoilers? The goal is minimum energy at the point of touch down, not maximum spoilers. The perfect approach would be with a glide angle 50% between full spoilers and no spoilers. That would have shown you have capability to adapt to any change in conditions. A full spoiler landing shows the pilot was too high and miss judged the approach.

My target on off field landings is to be stalling the plane on with the tail wheel touching just before the main. The only situation that calls for a full spoiler landing is clearing an obstacle on final. That should be an advanced maneuver, not standard practice.

So yes, less than full spoilers are the way to teach landings, and better for the aircraft.

Yes, occasionally outlanding requires flying over obstacles like trees. And occasionally the field is shorter than your home airfield. Then you would probably make full airbrakes approach.

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 2:49:32 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
I am not an instructor, but have done many real life off field landings. I don’t understand why you would be wanting to do landings with full spoilers? The goal is minimum energy at the point of touch down, not maximum spoilers. The perfect approach would be with a glide angle 50% between full spoilers and no spoilers. That would have shown you have capability to adapt to any change in conditions. A full spoiler landing shows the pilot was too high and miss judged the approach.

My target on off field landings is to be stalling the plane on with the tail wheel touching just before the main. The only situation that calls for a full spoiler landing is clearing an obstacle on final. That should be an advanced maneuver, not standard practice.

So yes, less than full spoilers are the way to teach landings, and better for the aircraft.

Hi Tim,

I see things very differently.

Being able to anticipate, intercept and execute a smooth, controlled, minimum energy glide slope with full flaps and full brakes is a basic skill every XC pilot should have in his toolbox.

I practice this at every opportunity and encourage my advancing XC students and flying buddies to do the same.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8