![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Am I right that the reasoning behind the high speed low height dash is that it
takes one of the variables out of the risk equation? You arrive at a point where you have the finish line made with some spare energy, but not a lot. If you fly the conservative approach at height you have an equal chance of finding lift and/or sink over that last stretch. Do this and there is uncertainty about the air you will fly through right up to the finish line. If you get right down into the stable layer right above the ground, the only thing you have to worry about is running out of airspeed, height and ideas simultaneously... But you did calculate this accurately with your flight computer so not having to worry about vertical airmass movement is an advantage. You can also fly above the rough air speed - you can be reasonably sure there will be no significant vertical gusts under 50-100 feet AGL. Finishing higher is safer for a number of reasons: It presents a better view of the airfield, and other aircraft. (Less surprises, better planning) You can use the MK1 eyeball to confirm what your computer(s) are saying about reaching the landing point. If - for some reason you experience a malfunction, you have a little more time to sort it out. If - for some reason someone else does something unexpected, you have alternatives. You have the luxury of slowing down and getting your mind out of race and into landing gear - with time for a reasonable, predictable circuit so other people know exactly what you are doing. All the time based advantages in safety equate to points forfeited. The personal level of risk accepted in the interests of winning is very personal. Those making these low fast approaches presumably believe that it improves their competitive position. But it helps to remember that you can't race in a broken glider, or with a broken body. Ian Cant wrote: Thankyou, KF and all others. Am I correct to summarize that there is a handful [or two, or maybe three handfuls] of points to be lost by finishing low but with enough surplus energy to pull up into a pattern rather than finishing with minimum safe energy at any altitude; that a safety margin should be carried right down to the final few moments; that a straight-in and land [either a rolling finish or after minimum-permitted altitude finish] tactic on the remaining runway ahead is the most 'efficient' provided it incurs no penalty; and the balance between points grasped and safety and showmanship is entirely at each pilot's discretion ? Thanks again for the education, Ian At 22:42 16 February 2007, Hl Falbaum wrote: 'Ian Cant' wrote in message ... The perennial contest finish argument is always entertaining. May I, as an ignorant bystander, ask a related question without being strafed too much ? If a finisher has the energy for a fast low pass and then pullup to a safe pattern, how much time along the course was spent to acquire that energy to be dissipated after the task is over ? Seems to me that there must be some points loss involved, even if it's small. Except of course for someone who is sure he has won by a large margin and will get his 1000 - but even then, there is a points gain for all the other competitors. Ian It appears that nobody has answered Ian's actual question (imagine that?) The height gained in the pullup is equivalent to the total energy excess and the 'efficiency' of the glider in the conversion. Figure 90% for an open classser, and about 85% for a current 15m ship (yeah, it's a W.A.G.) so if the glider gets 600' on the pullup and has 85% efficiency, he had 705' of total energy excess. If the last thermal was 4kt, then it took 1.76 min extra to climb. If points are about 8/ min, then it cost about 14 points! If running a street it gets a lot more complex as the streets are not uniform. It is seldom so simple, as, unless the air is dying ahead, one must have the power of prophecy to tell what is really going to happen. Hartley Falbaum DG800B 'KF' USA |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bruce Greef" wrote in message ... Am I right that the reasoning behind the high speed low height dash is that it takes one of the variables out of the risk equation? You arrive at a point where you have the finish line made with some spare energy, but not a lot. In the USA the Sailplane Racing Association , and in Canada, the Candian Advanced Soaring websites have excellent discussions on the subject http://sailplane-racing.org/Articles...llustrated.pdf http://www.sac.ca/cas/techniques/techniques.html Books by Reichmann, Piggott, Welch & Irving explain the problem fully. Modern flight computers can give you Total Energy corrected differential final glide height. This means that at any time, the computer can tell you how high above your "safety height" you would be when you reach the finish, if you slowed to best glide speed-MacCready Zero, or in some computers, if you slow to the set MacCready speed. So you follow your MacCready directed speed until you see that you have the field made--no doubt about it--. Either you see the airport at a comfortable angle below your glidepath, or the computer says you are a good margin above your safety height (500-1000 ft) that you have set-and you are just a few miles (4-6) out. From that point you go to "visual" and burn as much height as you think safe, while your computer tells you if you are gaining or losing on the differential. If you set, say 500 in, and the differential goes to zero, it means you can make it up to 500 if you slow down. Of course--don't trust your life to this! In general, a pull up from 120 kt to 60 kt recovers about only 450 ft. So don't plan on a low 50 ft pass at anything less or you won't like what could happen. If you are just crawling in, or walking at, say 80-90 kt, plan a rolling finish, but announce it because you will be landing against the flow of traffic! Better would be a high pattern---in the USA you lose points for a rolling finish. At any rate---These few points may make the difference between 1st and 3rd, or between 21st and 22nd, but who cares? Nobody will remember if you won or came in third that day, but they will remember a long time if you do something stupid. Hartley Falbaum DG800B "KF" USA 850 points on a really good day! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Suggestion: wind energy will make gliders cheaper | RichardFreytag | Soaring | 20 | April 24th 10 06:37 AM |
Under Entirely New Management, pt 3 - Ki-45-56.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 9th 06 01:43 PM |
Energy-absorbing foam for seats | ELIPPSE | Home Built | 7 | April 8th 05 10:43 PM |
WTB: Sage Model B Netto Total Energy Box | November Bravo | Soaring | 0 | March 15th 05 03:10 PM |
varios not using a total energy probe | Robert | Soaring | 20 | April 25th 04 11:24 PM |