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
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 12:20*pm, Andy wrote:
Where did the use of L/D (the ratio of lift to drag) to describe a ground referenced flight path angle originate? *I know it has been perpetuated by SeeYou, but did they start it? That goes back to the 50s, very likely. Certainly, it was used on circular slide rule calculators of the 60s (referenced in Sunship Game and articles of the era). L/D *is* a little easier to say than "the inverse of the tangent of the flight path angle", even if it *is* extremely sloppy shorthand. -T8 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 9:38*am, T8 wrote:
That goes back to the 50s, very likely. *Certainly, it was used on circular slide rule calculators of the 60s (referenced in Sunship Game and articles of the era). *L/D *is* a little easier to say than "the inverse of the tangent of the flight path angle", even if it *is* extremely sloppy shorthand. I've been flying gliders long enough to have used prayer wheels as my only flight computer. I never used one to compute my required L/D, and don't know any way to use one to compute achieved L/D. Then, and now, I considered arrival altitude and computed how high I had to climb to achieve that arrival altitude. L over D is no easier to say than FPA. In fact it's one syllable longer. Andy (GY) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 8:17*am, akiley wrote:
On Aug 23, 12:32*am, Darryl Ramm wrote: On Aug 22, 7:10*pm, akiley wrote: [snip] Required L/D to target tells you what you need to achieve. It makes no sense to fold wind into that, its just the distance divided by the difference in height. Achieved L/D tells you what you are getting obviously with wind affects as well, all without any assumptions about polars, mass, bugs, or wind. That is the beauty of working with L/D required and achieved. This is a good point, but since wind isn't factored into required L/D, you don't know what your achieved L/D is unless you turn around and head back to the airport. *But it does seem to be safer and more straight forward. *And I suppose since you are always aware of the winds, you can make a fairly accurate guess as to what you achieved L/ D is likely to be. *If it's a straight headwind home at 5 knots, I could just mentally modify what I expect to achieve. Again the L/D required is a statement of fact (as long as your altitude and the destination elevation are accurate. It's beautiful for it's simplicity. It also relates directly to the glide angle (OK Andy) and you should develop eyeball skill for that over time. Now its clearer where you are at, I would recommend at this stage of your flying, where you are just taking steps away from the home gliderport, to use the PDA calculated arrival height (above a safety margin, with bugs factored -- in SeeYou Mobile if you want higher bugs than 30% then you will need to modify the polar parameters). And that arrival height will give you a safety margin that you can probalby best relate to. I suspect what John is talking about with Mc is too much for a new, pre-XC pilot, it is probalby easier to work with what is likely to be a more intuitive understanding of arrival height to start with. Then I'd add the L/D metrics to get a feel for those (esp. as a sanity check since they don't rely on computations) then maybe move up to thinking more about the Mc stuff as you worry about XC performance and develop a feel for what a Mc margin means. How you are getting the wind calculation? As mentioned by others if you don't have reliable wind data then worrying about factoring in wind data may be irrelevant or worse. If you are hand entering wind data that you trust that is great (all soaring software users knew how to do that or at least how to reset suspect overly optimistic winds). What Mc do you actually fly at? And how do you do this? For starting off I would leave the Mc you actually fly at (i.e. your average airspeed) low and don't try chasing the speed to fly (STF). Even if you have a real STF computer that can calculate a reasonable STF there are technical arguments about why its not as efficient as it might be, but for a newer XC pilot overly chasing the STF is just a distraction and especially may make it hard to find lift, estimate whether to take a thermal, find blue convergence/energy lines etc. And don't try to closely follow the STF Navbox on SeeYou Mobile, it just cannot calculate that anything that useful from altitude (GPS or pressure) data. --- The PDA software is just a help, like other say, its a moving sectional chart and a way to reduce calculations you would otherwise do in your head, with a glide ruler or on a prayer wheel. Often a good exercise to construct a glide ruler and hand draw some glide circles on a sectional with different winds factored in. Doing that by hand for where you fly should gives you a good feel for wind effects -- see the ruler template at http://www.gliderbooks.com/downloads.html and instructions in his Glider Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge book. Just like getting a sectional and marking down landing options also helps, "flying" to those in Google Earth or visiting them in a power aircraft really help but there is something beautifully simple and very tactile about pen and paper that seems to help people really get a fell for things. GlidePlan (http://www.glideplan.com) can also do this for you on a Mac or PC but doing by hand at least once is probably a good idea. But even better than asking on r.a.s. can you find a local accomplished XC pilot(s) who can mentor you on all this stuff? Yes, my club has several and I'm talking to them too. *It's also funny about gadgets in aircraft. *My feeling is learn to use the autopilot and whenever you can, learn navigators using simulators. *Half learning electronics is the most dangerous in my opinion. *I enjoy navigators, but I'm strict as to when and how to use them. Compared to power XC flying you are much more dependent on all the subtleties happening outside the glider, so try to get the PDA into the background and focus on finding lift, working thermals, finding energy lines, flying smoothly and efficiently. You can learn a lot just flying triangles around a local gliderport and just keep stepping up what you do. There are lots of ways to skin a cat, but if somebody skilled is willing to mentor you it is worth following the way they do things so you can more easily learn from them. If you know of any bugs in SeeYou Mobile, please report then to Naviter. Darryl |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 12:54*pm, Andy wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:38*am, T8 wrote: That goes back to the 50s, very likely. *Certainly, it was used on circular slide rule calculators of the 60s (referenced in Sunship Game and articles of the era). *L/D *is* a little easier to say than "the inverse of the tangent of the flight path angle", even if it *is* extremely sloppy shorthand. *I've been flying gliders long enough to have used prayer wheels as my only flight computer. I never used one to compute my required L/D, and don't know any way to use one to compute achieved L/D. *Then, and now, I considered arrival altitude and computed how high I had to climb to achieve that arrival altitude. L over D is no easier to say than FPA. *In fact it's one syllable longer. Andy (GY) 40:1 seems more intuitive to me than 1.432 degrees, even if it isn't strictly speaking an angle. I do prefer the term "glide angle" to L/ D. I've never used a slide rule calculator in the cockpit. I started XC soaring in the "early electronic" era, but before I could afford such exotica, I simply used circles on the map, 5 statute miles per 1000' plus pattern allowance. I always got home. Of course, if the weather was in any way bizarre, I stayed above my final glide numbers by a comfortable margin. IIRC, George Moffatt had a design that incorporated various "glide angles", expressed as 40:1, 35:1, 30:1 etc. I am uncertain of the details. -T8 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 9:00*am, John Cochrane
wrote: Well, just for a contrary opinion, I disagree with Darryl and Kirk. Mc setting is the right set of units for everything in soaring. If you must think about glide angles, the right units are D/L not L/ D. *L/D goes through infinity when you run in to lift. D/L (feet per mile, meters per kilometer) does not. If you gain 200 feet in lift vs. lose 200 feet in lift, L/D shows radically different changes, D/L does not. The "safety profile" for making it to a goal with constant (say 99%) probability follows a roughly square root function of distance. (Square root follows if lift/sink are independent over distance) *Most of us approximate this with a relatively high Mc setting (3-4) plus a reserve altitude. Smoother conditions -- less lift or sink -- means less uncertainty about your glide. So, paradoxically, you can use more aggressive safety settings if there is no lift around, because then there is no sink around. Strong lift mans strong sink; half chance of escaping in 10 knots, half chance of hitting the dirt in 10 knot sink. Therefore, use a higher Mc setting and higher reserve altitude with stronger lift/ sink or general uncertainty. To fly a safety glide you want to have the glide computer at a high Mc setting, but fly slowly and accept weaker lift. Many pilots disconnect the glide computer from the vario for this reason. Well, I do. Instrument makers should recognize this difference and make it easier to have a different Mc for glide than vario. Wind is irrelevant here, with one exception. As you lower the Mc setting heading upwind, you will discover a point at which lower Mc setttings seem to make it worse. This is a featuer not a bug. The best glide in wind occurs at a higher Mc setting. don't fly slower than that, don't take weaker thermals than that, or you wont get home John Cochrane John, as usual, is correct, but in this case it's a bit of apples and oranges. Darryl and I use "L/D" as a shorthand for a quick analysis of the flight path angle required to make a destination. It's totally Mc independent, and is easy to interpret at a glance on a moving map. For accurate final glides in competition mode, where more accuracy is desired, using Mc based on the last climb plus winds is the way to go (and why I use my SN10 and not SeeYouM for final glides), but I also crosscheck the two for a sanity check. Always nice to have two opinions in the cockpit - the trick is to decide which one is right! Cheers, Kirk |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
Thanks Darryl,
How you are getting the wind calculation? As mentioned by others if you don't have reliable wind data then worrying about factoring in wind data may be irrelevant or worse. If you are hand entering wind data that you trust that is great (all soaring software users knew how to do that or at least how to reset suspect overly optimistic winds). I don't think SeeYou does very well with winds. This is what I've experienced and read in other posts. I get winds aloft from several sources/stations during my home briefing. I enter those directly into SeeYou and always check them before I do my MC required to target. What Mc do you actually fly at? And how do you do this? For starting off I would leave the Mc you actually fly at (i.e. your average airspeed) low and don't try chasing the speed to fly (STF). Even if you have a real STF computer that can calculate a reasonable STF there are technical arguments about why its not as efficient as it might be, but for a newer XC pilot overly chasing the STF is just a distraction and especially may make it hard to find lift, estimate whether to take a thermal, find blue convergence/energy lines etc. And don't try to closely follow the STF Navbox on SeeYou Mobile, it just cannot calculate that anything that useful from altitude (GPS or pressure) data. My SeeYou is not plugged into anything so it's all GPS. To be honest, I use it mostly to analyze me flight when I get home. I look at it in flight to backup a possible creepy feeling because I look a bit low for my liking. I fly MC zero generally because I'm flying local working on my thermal technique. If I encounter sink I speed up maybe 10 or 15 knots depending on how large the sink area is. If I have a headwind I'm trying to penetrate, I will speed up somewhat as well. I guess what I really want to be sure of is NOT landing out. The PDA software is just a help, like other say, its a moving sectional chart and a way to reduce calculations you would otherwise do in your head, with a glide ruler or on a prayer wheel. Often a good exercise to construct a glide ruler and hand draw some glide circles on a sectional with different winds factored in. Doing that by hand for where you fly should gives you a good feel for wind effects -- see the ruler template athttp://www.gliderbooks.com/downloads.htmland instructions in his Glider Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge book. Just like getting a sectional and marking down landing options also helps, "flying" to those in Google Earth or visiting them in a power aircraft really help but there is something beautifully simple and very tactile about pen and paper that seems to help people really get a fell for things. GlidePlan (http://www.glideplan.com) can also do this for you on a Mac or PC but doing by hand at least once is probably a good idea. Great ideas. I'm a photographer and made a "Stocker" whizz wheel using notes from Reichmann's cross country book. Put it together by scanning a sectional and layering it in Photoshop. That thing turns heads at the glider club. I've also computed range rings and put layered them over a sectional offset for winds. That's a time consuming math project for me anyway, especially if you have a safety altitude figured in. Anyway, I love the old fashioned approaches and used them as often as the electronics. I also flew a little Cessna 152 into all the local fields that I might land with gliders. But even better than asking on r.a.s. can you find a local accomplished XC pilot(s) who can mentor you on all this stuff? Yes, my club has several and I'm talking to them too. *It's also funny about gadgets in aircraft. *My feeling is learn to use the autopilot and whenever you can, learn navigators using simulators. *Half learning electronics is the most dangerous in my opinion. *I enjoy navigators, but I'm strict as to when and how to use them. Compared to power XC flying you are much more dependent on all the subtleties happening outside the glider, so try to get the PDA into the background and focus on finding lift, working thermals, finding energy lines, flying smoothly and efficiently. You can learn a lot just flying triangles around a local gliderport and just keep stepping up what you do. There are lots of ways to skin a cat, but if somebody skilled is willing to mentor you it is worth following the way they do things so you can more easily learn from them. I'm lucky, I have a friend that talked me into soaring last spring. He has a Ventus 2CX and on any reasonable day, he and his buddies do 250 mile round trips landing at dinner time. Then our club has several instructors that seem to be very good. If you know of any bugs in SeeYou Mobile, please report then to Naviter. Have done that. Darryl |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 8:40*am, akiley wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:00*am, John Cochrane wrote: Well, just for a contrary opinion, I disagree with Darryl and Kirk. Mc setting is the right set of units for everything in soaring. If you must think about glide angles, the right units are D/L not L/ D. *L/D goes through infinity when you run in to lift. D/L (feet per mile, meters per kilometer) does not. If you gain 200 feet in lift vs. lose 200 feet in lift, L/D shows radically different changes, D/L does not. The "safety profile" for making it to a goal with constant (say 99%) probability follows a roughly square root function of distance. (Square root follows if lift/sink are independent over distance) *Most of us approximate this with a relatively high Mc setting (3-4) plus a reserve altitude. Smoother conditions -- less lift or sink -- means less uncertainty about your glide. So, paradoxically, you can use more aggressive safety settings if there is no lift around, because then there is no sink around. Strong lift mans strong sink; half chance of escaping in 10 knots, half chance of hitting the dirt in 10 knot sink. Therefore, use a higher Mc setting and higher reserve altitude with stronger lift/ sink or general uncertainty. To fly a safety glide you want to have the glide computer at a high Mc setting, but fly slowly and accept weaker lift. Many pilots disconnect the glide computer from the vario for this reason. Well, I do. Instrument makers should recognize this difference and make it easier to have a different Mc for glide than vario. Wind is irrelevant here, with one exception. As you lower the Mc setting heading upwind, you will discover a point at which lower Mc setttings seem to make it worse. This is a featuer not a bug. The best glide in wind occurs at a higher Mc setting. don't fly slower than that, don't take weaker thermals than that, or you wont get home John Cochrane I did a little calculation for a standard Cirrus with no wind. *I did this by using SeeYou mobile in simulator mode. *I did manual math for angle and feet per NM. *Here are a few numbers. *They might not format correctly. Required L/D * * 38, * *28, * 20, * *15, * 10 Required MC * * * 0, * *3.5, *7.4, * 12, * 22 glide angle deg *1.7, * 2.2, *2.9, * *3.8, *5.7 feet per NM * * * *158, *215, 300, *400, *600 Then I added a big headwind. *Required L/D stays the same, but MC corrects for winds. *... akiley Okay, for eyeball calculations this makes sense. I normally use miles per thousand plus 1000' arrival (plus field elevation) to estimate if I'm high or low. I printed a table that showed how many miles I could get per 1,000' as a function of Mc (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10) and wind (-25 to +25 mph). If you are just starting to venture out from home and you are in the US, consider getting a copy of GlidePlan software. It will allow you to print minimum altitude contours directly onto a sectional chart (you can even print alternate maps for different wind conditions). Then all you need to do is figure out where you are on the chart and it will tell you how high you need to be. Pretty cool. www.glideplan.com Andy 9B |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 23, 11:56*am, Joseph Kiley wrote:
Thanks Darryl, How you are getting the wind calculation? As mentioned by others if you don't have reliable wind data then worrying about factoring in wind data may be irrelevant or worse. If you are hand entering wind data that you trust that is great (all soaring software users knew how to do that or at least how to reset suspect overly optimistic winds). I don't think SeeYou does very well with winds. *This is what I've experienced and read in other posts. * I get winds aloft from several sources/stations during my home briefing. *I enter those directly into SeeYou and always check them before I do my MC required to target. SeeYou Mobile does *very* well with wind if it has the data to work from. With just a GPS input all SeeYou can do is effectively look at thermal circle drift, that depends on how well you thermal, how long/ far since the last thermal, and lots of other things. When connected to an external flight computer (like a C302) SeeYou Mobile will use TAS data from the flight computer and relatively small change in heading to also calculate winds and it tends to a much better job overall. This is not just a SeeYou Mobile thing, other devices limited to just GPS input will often show the same problems. However if you are in doubt, clobber the wind settings and take a few good clean circles with any of these devices they should produce a reasonable idea of the wind. Search r.a.s. on Google for past discussion on SeeYou Mobile wind calculations by myself and other authors. What Mc do you actually fly at? And how do you do this? For starting off I would leave the Mc you actually fly at (i.e. your average airspeed) low and don't try chasing the speed to fly (STF). Even if you have a real STF computer that can calculate a reasonable STF there are technical arguments about why its not as efficient as it might be, but for a newer XC pilot overly chasing the STF is just a distraction and especially may make it hard to find lift, estimate whether to take a thermal, find blue convergence/energy lines etc. And don't try to closely follow the STF Navbox on SeeYou Mobile, it just cannot calculate that anything that useful from altitude (GPS or pressure) data. My SeeYou is not plugged into anything so it's all GPS. *To be honest, I use it mostly to analyze me flight when I get home. *I look at it in flight to backup a possible creepy feeling because I look a bit low for my liking. *I fly MC zero generally because I'm flying local working on my thermal technique. *If I encounter sink I speed up maybe 10 or 15 knots depending on how large the sink area is. *If I have a headwind I'm trying to penetrate, I will speed up somewhat as well. *I guess what I really want to be sure of is NOT landing out. For typical days where there is lift available and as you become more comfortable with thermaling I would encourage you to try to start with Mc near 1. Mc == 0 means you really are in desperation mode and don't really plan to go anywhere. See the discussion in Reichman about this. Mc=0 quickly becomes a kind of boat anchor dragging on you. If you are dialing the Mc into a flight computer (or STF ring on a winter vario) it also starts giving you a feel for how excess Mc helps you if you run into worse conditions than you expect. You can increase the Mc setting you fly at up from there as you gain confidence, but dont' go crazy with it. A rule of thumb often used especially for new XC folks it to set the Mc conservatively at 1/2 to 1/3 of what you think your next average climb will be - and even then its just to give you an idea of average speed to fly, don't go chasing it. Sounds like you have a good approach as is. The last thermal average climb stats in SeeYou Mobile can be interesting to check, it will often be much less than you think, and even then it often misses time wasted mucking around trying to find lift. BTW details of wind effects and Mc may not be obvious, search for past r.a.s. postings by John Cochrane and others on this. [snip] Darryl |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
How I use SeeYou mobile for final glides (when I get a chance to do
them): With my chosen arrival altitude and my/or the computer's best estimates of the wind set, then in the likely last thermal I use the usual McCready/Cochrane considerations plus my personal wimp factor to decide when to leave the thermal and to judge an appropriate starting McCready setting. This is just to get in the ballpark of when to start the glide. Next, as I start the glide I take note of the required LD (SYM calculates this to the arrival altitude) and as long as this number stays the same or gets smaller then I am on glide or can speed up respectively. If the number gets bigger I have to slow down or climb. The required LD is wrongly named in SYM - it is actually the glide angle with respect to the ground. All glide angles converge at the destination so any glide angle that I can keep constant will bring me to home at my arrival reserve altitude. This is independent of any errors in wind/polar/bugs. I never have understood why most glide calculators seem to work on altitude difference displays resulting glides vertically parallel to the starting glide angle when proportionately less altitude difference is required as one gets closer to the destination. (I don't find that the method recommended in the SYM manual of comparing Achieved LD with Required LD is any good because the Achieved LD varies so much in a much shorter time scale.) John Galloway |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
required LD versus required MC to make it home ??
On Aug 22, 8:10*pm, akiley wrote:
Hi All, I'm aware of and use the math formula to get my rental Cirrus back to home base, but I like to back it up with SeeYou mobile. *I know it's recommended to use required LD to target making sure you have entered a correct polar and safety altitude. *But this doesn't account for winds does it? *If you are flying away from your target wondering how far you can safely fly, you can't depend on required LD because big headwinds can make this number useless. *As an example, I notice I've got 25LD required to my home base. *I turn around and because of the headwinds, I can only make 18LC. *Outlanding anyone. I'm curious about MC required to target. *Wouldn't that be better to use if you make sure all data is correct such as polar, winds, safety altitude and make sure the correct target is activated. *This way, I can wander away from my home field and I know if my MC doesn't fall below about say 7 (which plays out to about 20 LD in no wind) I am fairly assured of making it and that this MC will be wind aware. *Of course it can't know about hitting lots of sink, but it seems a better way for my type of non task, local soaring. Before I finish, I would like to note that the MC to target NavBox in SeeYouM doesn't always update very quickly if you change the winds aloft manually. *For this problem, I scroll the MC value untill the little glide slope type indicater on the left side of SeeYou centers, then compare that MC to the required MC NavBox. akiley I look at "altitude required", with either an auto or manually set MC, depending on the time of day. For a final glide, I climb to the altitude I feel is appropriate for the glide home and then adjust my speed, depending on the air mass I am gliding through. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I.D required | Glenn[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 8 | November 12th 08 10:22 PM |
ELT Required for all SSA sanctioned contests starting 2006 ELT Required for all SSA sanctione | Steve Leonard | Soaring | 2 | September 14th 05 03:49 AM |
There is no penalty for failing to make the required FAA reports or investigation! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 9 | October 12th 04 04:06 AM |
New Home Required | Ged McKnight | Soaring | 0 | February 1st 04 08:11 PM |
Good Home Required | Ged McKnight | Soaring | 6 | January 27th 04 10:00 PM |