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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Chris OCallaghan wrote:
Andy, I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really make any difference in what you see? Framing wires against the sky (if that's your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which in turn means you are at risk of hitting other wires. What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires advanced energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for low time pilots (the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was it suggested by someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time and experience? I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next few flights. But I guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage I have by flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you apply the same method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it meant losing sight of your intended touch down point during much of the final leg? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Andy yet, but let's consider for a moment the psychological effect of this idea: perhaps it helps focus the pilot on the objects between the glider and the intended touchdown. Or helps orient the pilot to the type of terrain found on the way in, or gets him lower so it's easier to determine wind direction from small cues on the ground. Again, I'm not advocating the idea, but there are some more subtle points... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:02:44 UTC, (Kirk Stant)
wrote: : But you : shouldn't be jerking your head around while flying! Except to scan for other aircraft. Ian -- |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
I guess the question comes down to energy management.
At one extreme, if you come in low and slow on a long final you run the risk of not being able to extend your touchdown point should an obstacle become apparent. At the opposite extreme, a short, high and fast approach runs the risk of running too long on touchdown, even with full spoilers. I've opted for being a bit faster in the pattern to keep some extra margin for wind gusts and to allow more margin for moments of distraction turning base or final. To keep total energy under control, this means flying a bit lower pattern. Flying 70 knots instead of 60 knots means about 50' lower in the pattern for the same total energy. Obviously you'd start to slow down before getting to treetops or other obstacles. In a 'standard' approach you have to lose about 20 knots from final approach to touchdown. I need lose 30 knots, which means starting that process a few seconds sooner. The flatter glidepath on short final means that you are, for a brief period, at a lower angle to your final touchdown point, so you do get a peek at potential obstacles. I can't say that this has ever directly benefitted me, but I do know of cases where pilots have been too slow on final, with bad results. 9B At 23:24 28 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote: Chris OCallaghan wrote: Andy, I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really make any difference in what you see? Framing wires against the sky (if that's your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which in turn means you are at risk of hitting other wires. What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires advanced energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for low time pilots (the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was it suggested by someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time and experience? I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next few flights. But I guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage I have by flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you apply the same method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it meant losing sight of your intended touch down point during much of the final leg? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Andy yet, but let's consider for a moment the psychological effect of this idea: perhaps it helps focus the pilot on the objects between the glider and the intended touchdown. Or helps orient the pilot to the type of terrain found on the way in, or gets him lower so it's easier to determine wind direction from small cues on the ground. Again, I'm not advocating the idea, but there are some more subtle points... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote:
I guess the question comes down to energy management. At one extreme, if you come in low and slow on a long final you run the risk of not being able to extend your touchdown point should an obstacle become apparent. At the opposite extreme, a short, high and fast approach runs the risk of running too long on touchdown, even with full spoilers. In between, I suppose there is "high and slow" (perhaps the "normal" pattern), and "low and fast" (what you seem to be using). I am curious about how you decided "low and fast" was the best choice: conversations with other pilots, testing both methods on fields (maybe with a motorglider?), or ...? I've opted for being a bit faster in the pattern to keep some extra margin for wind gusts and to allow more margin for moments of distraction turning base or final. What are you flying "a bit faster" than? The glider handbook recommendation? The club instructor's opinion? Or just what you used to use? To keep total energy under control, this means flying a bit lower pattern. Flying 70 knots instead of 60 knots means about 50' lower in the pattern for the same total energy. Obviously you'd start to slow down before getting to treetops or other obstacles. What glider are you flying? 60 knots in calm air already sounds "a bit faster" than most gliders would have to fly. Where is the yellow triangle on your airspeed indicator? How much wind would it take before you'd use _more_ than 70 knots? My glider has the yellow triangle at 50 knots, and normally I wouldn't use 70 knots on final unless the wind was over 30 knots. In a 'standard' approach you have to lose about 20 knots from final approach to touchdown. I need lose 30 knots, which means starting that process a few seconds sooner. The flatter glidepath on short final means that you are, for a brief period, at a lower angle to your final touchdown point, so you do get a peek at potential obstacles. This "fast and low" approach sounds like something easily done at the home airport, but would be tricky to do right going into a field you've never seen before. Have you used this method at airports and into fields you've been landed at before? I can't say that this has ever directly benefitted me, but I do know of cases where pilots have been too slow on final, with bad results. And there have been cases where pilots have been too fast on final, with bad results. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Durbin wrote:
We had this discussion before. If the thermal is coming from a stationary ground source, and the best performance is zero sink in the thermal, doing it exactly as a ground reference manuever (shallow upwind, steep tailwind) is correct. Otherwise one is blown downwind of the thermal. This was well discussed in threads about a year ago. If one starts at 60 degree banks on the upwind, with 10+ knots of wind and zero sink, trying to core the thermal on the downwind will be exciting... Thermalling at any height is a thermal referenced maneuver. The thermal is in the air, the maneuver is not ground referenced. Well, we went over this last year. I don't know how to look up old RAS threads. Perhaps someone else does. -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
At 21:54 29 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
I am curious about how you decided 'low and fast' was the best choice: conversations with other pilots, testing both methods on fields (maybe with a motorglider?), or ...? After seeing too many friends die in stall/spin accidents - it's purely a consequence of my own paranoia with flying too slow in the pattern. What are you flying 'a bit faster' than? The glider handbook recommendation? Yes. What glider are you flying? ASW-27B This 'fast and low' approach sounds like something easily done at the home airport, but would be tricky to do right going into a field you've never seen before. Have you used this method at airports and into fields you've been landed at before? Yes. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...roup=rec.aviat
ion.soaring Mark- Just make sure to click the 'RAS only' bullet, and use the standard google search techniques... Well, we went over this last year. I don't know how to look up old RAS threads. Perhaps someone else does. -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 21:54 29 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: I am curious about how you decided 'low and fast' was the best choice: conversations with other pilots, testing both methods on fields (maybe with a motorglider?), or ...? After seeing too many friends die in stall/spin accidents - it's purely a consequence of my own paranoia with flying too slow in the pattern. I can see how the "fast" part can help, but not the "low" part. Being low doesn't seem like an asset if you are worried about stalls and spins. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |