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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I
had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1, which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find my next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't. So a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different parts of the country! -ted/2NO "Ken Kochanski (KK)" wrote in message oups.com... http://sailplane-racing.org/rules.htm Ken Kochanski SRA Secretary |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Wagner wrote:
The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1, which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find my next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't. So a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different parts of the country! I think when you have more experience, you'll the 304 is good machine for the Sports Class, even it it's only 40:1. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Ted Wagner" wrote in message news:1113884285.a78fd29b709c0208118e60bfb2ea8e41@t eranews... The whole handicap thing remains a mystery to this racing sophomore. If I had to fly my glider in soft conditions I would feel more advantaged, with low sink rates and good L/D below 65 knots (but not the advertised 44:1, which is a joke). When the conditions get strong (I fly in Arizona), my competitors disappear into the horizon when I find myself having to find my next thermal. Often this means they get to the next thermal and I don't. So a glider's handicap seems to have quite a different affect in different parts of the country! It's a impossible task to make ONE coefficient to correct the multi-dimensional problem field... There are many scenarios that make unfair compensation: 1. Too long glide (for more-handicapped glider), I go to a field, others get average speed 2. (Mr. Cochrane With lesser performance, I have to use weaker lifts, less average speed as compared to flying the same McCready performance ratio 3. If clearly less performance, others fly together, me alone - almost fatal in blue days and severely affects also in others. To compensate the unfairness: 4. Rain wall, tough upper cloud or equivalent on the task: I win, because everybody stops on the (almost) same spot. Hmmm.. probablility: (1..3)/4 is approximately 25:1 (subjective guess) I am accustomed to German handicap system (flying mostly 0.96 against 1.04-1.08) and admittedly being less of a pilot as well, I still feel squaring the handicaps might make it even a bit closer (doesn't help 1., though) 2, and especially 3 are prevalent in most of the days This evaluation is based both flying in (last 5 years) and scoring the gliding competitions (last 10 years). Maybe the handicap system works better when each pilot flies alone. regards, hannu |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Anybody want to write a dynamic handicapping system ... something that
would take all the flight logs from a contest to analyze task length, thermal strength, height and working band, spacing, wind strength (all by time of day) ... and come up with a 'fair' handicap for the day. KK |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"hannu" wrote in message ...
.. .. 1. Too long glide (for more-handicapped glider), I go to a field, others get average speed 2. (Mr. Cochrane With lesser performance, I have to use weaker lifts, less average speed as compared to flying the same McCready performance ratio 3. If clearly less performance, others fly together, me alone - almost fatal in blue days and severely affects also in others. To compensate the unfairness: 4. Rain wall, tough upper cloud or equivalent on the task: I win, because everybody stops on the (almost) same spot. This evaluation is based both flying in (last 5 years) and scoring the gliding competitions (last 10 years). Maybe the handicap system works better when each pilot flies alone. That is exactly what the handicap factors are based on: It takes in to account the performance of the glider type, flown alone, in homogeneous weather. Your 1.-4. simply can't be compensated mathematically. regards Marcel |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote: Anybody want to write a dynamic handicapping system ... something that would take all the flight logs from a contest to analyze task length, thermal strength, height and working band, spacing, wind strength (all by time of day) ... and come up with a 'fair' handicap for the day. KK The Soaring Society of South Africa has come up with a dynamic handicap system. It is based on three senarios - weak, intermediate and strong. The senario applied will be based on the top speeds of the day. The whole system is normalised to the ASW 20. An example of how it works is that an ASW 17 will fly off a handicap of 109% to the ASW 20 on a weak day but only 102% on a strong day. An ASW 27 will fly of a 106% handicap to the ASW 20 on a weak day but 113% on a strong day. The system is still very new but has been used in the last Nationals and at the Gauteng Regionals and will be used at the North West Regionals at the end of this month. More details can be found on the SSSA website (sssa.org.za) Clinton Lak 12 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Leonard wrote:
Mark, As one qutoe says, "There is No Substitute for Span." Then, some Bird came along and said "There is a Substitute for span. It is called Talent. But you can buy Span!" That reasoning seems to presuppose you can only have one or the other. What's to say you can't have both ? Cheers CV |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
40:1 if I'm lucky, and freshly cleaned and waxed ... DJ couldn't get
better than 38:1 in his flight test, and that was at 50 knots, not 60. I love my 304CZ, it's the perfect ship for a newer pilot who enjoys both recreational and contest x/c, but when the CD calls a 250 mile AST on a strong summer day, I'm in trouble if I can't start 20 minutes before all Venti, LS-8s and ASW-27s I fly against start ... -ted/2NO |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the interesting replies.
It was interesting to hear that yes, gound assembly and handling was a consideration. It seems that the convenience of self-launch, or assembly, etc. do have a notable effect on choices in gliders. Cost is just another factor that is put in with these factors. I also thought I saw a 750kg limit total for contests. Is this right in the U.S.? I guess that would be a bit of an arbitrary disincentive for more span too At 23:00 18 April 2005, Steve Leonard wrote: Mark, As one qutoe says, 'There is No Substitute for Span.' Then, some Bird came along and said 'There is a Substitute for span. It is called Talent. But you can buy Span!' Handling qualities are relative. If you are looking for a ship to do acro in, I would not recommend an ASH-25. Of the big ships I am aware of, the handling is not bad. Just slower in roll. Forces are still generally light. And they take more work to fly well in circles. But as some pilot here in the US said when someone complained about how the Ventus requires lots of effort to fly, 'A REAL pilot does not have any trouble flying a Ventus.' Ground rigging is probably the biggest reason for people not liking to deal with the open class ships. Face it. Most have six pieces of wing to attach. No matter how bad your two piece wing might be, it will probably take less time to assemble than a six piece wing. Runway width can be an issue, as we generaly will hang out near or over lights on both sides of the runway. Know your airplane and you can offset one way then lower the other wing. As for performance, I personally think they have gotten too big. Look at the Schleicher site on the ASH-25. Partly marketing, but they make the comment that higher minimum wing loadings do not seem to hurt the open class gliders. And with a 750 KG weight limit for contests, the current open class ships are stuck at under 9.5 psf. The Nimbus 4 is about 8.7. Read what others have written, and almost all of them want more weight. I came up with the idea that best L/D can be approximated by Span in Meters plus Aspect Ratio. This generally gets you within about 10%, except on the new 15 meter class ships, where it falls a bit short of the claims by the factories. If the span was cut back to, say 22 meters, and the aspect ratio run up to about 40 (heck, Eta is 51,and the long tipped 25's are pushing if not above 40, but with 26 plus meters of span), that puts the area at about 130 square feet. Chords would be similar to an ASW-27, but over longer sections between the taper breaks. Now, if my ultra preliminary estimation for performance holds true, you would have about the same best L/D (22 + 40 = 62) as a N4, but you could ballast up to about 12.8 psf at 750 KG. Wouldn't that make for a rocketship! And if you could keep the minimum wingloading to about 8.5, this leave about 900 lbs for the empty weight (200 lb pilot). Seems doable to me at a first glance. Of course, this view is US Based. In Europe, there doesn't seem to be the desire for the ultra-high wing loading. And do you think any manufacturer would put out a smaller Unlimted Class ship than what they have now? Not bloody likely. So, is 24 meters too much? Maybe, for the US and the weight restriction. You might do better with less. I see lots of pictures of German registered ASH-25s that have been stretched, some to as much as 27 meters. So, I am suspecting that L/D max is more important than the ultra high speed cruising in Europe. That, and the crossover for the longer wings is above the often used cruising speeds. And just to confuse things, I have a 604 that I am looking to stretch from 22 to 24 meters. Being in the more sedate, flat lands, I am looking for more low end performance, and hoping the cross-over will be above my typical crusie speeds. But, if you know of anyone willing to part with an ASH-26 fuselage, I could get started on a set of thin, 22 meter wings to try and prove my point... Could be intersting to plan a 40:1 final glide at 115 knots, no wind. Steve Leonard Mark J. Boyd |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"CV" wrote in message ... Steve Leonard wrote: Mark, As one qutoe says, "There is No Substitute for Span." Then, some Bird came along and said "There is a Substitute for span. It is called Talent. But you can buy Span!" That reasoning seems to presuppose you can only have one or the other. What's to say you can't have both ? Cheers CV Well, in that case you don't need a substitute. Tim Ward |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mountain Flying Course: Colorado, Apr, Jun, Aug 2005 | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | April 3rd 05 08:48 PM |
17 Feb 2005 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 17th 05 09:51 PM |
International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications 2005 | avinash | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 10:14 PM |
Int. Conf. on Systems Engineering'05 - August 16-18, 2005 | avinash | Naval Aviation | 0 | January 29th 05 10:13 PM |
CPA 2005 Fly-In Announced | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 4 | November 15th 04 03:31 AM |