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 |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Nyal Williams wrote: I suspect that you may be confusing the 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind' with 'the best speed to make a safe approach to landing'. Tony, As I read his question it, he was asking for 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind. Actually, he seemed to confuse the two in the question. And why earth would you want to know that when you were in the circuit? You are surely not going to go *that* far downwind that you need best L/D into wind in order to get back. The extra speed with wind is to provide extra guard against a tail gust stalling you (though the +10 knots or *1.3 does a lot of that), but mostly I think so that and likely wind gradient still leaves you with flying speed. -- Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Verhulst wrote:
The fault was clearly my failure to use a proper landing checklist. stops laughing long enough to nod head in agreement with this wise, but slightly obvious statement :P I'm MUCH better at using a landing check list now :-). Still, when I bought the LS6, the first thing I did was to install a gear warning. I'm at the point that I don't know if I'll ever fly anything without it. I've never landed gear up, and don't want to. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Hoult wrote:
And why earth would you want to know that when you were in the circuit? You are surely not going to go *that* far downwind that you need best L/D into wind in order to get back. Apparently this is a significant cause of crashes (undershot landing from overshot downwind). On another subject, can someone describe the 45/V type approach that I've heard is used in some countries? Is it like this? -------------------------------\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / ----------------- | / | | / | | | / The Runway | --+----| ----/ | | | | | ----------------- | -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
At 07:06 08 September 2004, Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article , Nyal Williams wrote: I suspect that you may be confusing the 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind' with 'the best speed to make a safe approach to landing'. Tony, As I read his question it, he was asking for 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind. Actually, he seemed to confuse the two in the question. And why earth would you want to know that when you were in the circuit? You are surely not going to go *that* far downwind that you need best L/D into wind in order to get back. The extra speed with wind is to provide extra guard against a tail gust stalling you (though the +10 knots or *1.3 does a lot of that), but mostly I think so that and likely wind gradient still leaves you with flying speed. -- Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+- Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O---------- I wouldn't. He proposed the scenario and asked why 1/2 the wind speed added to the best L/D was the best speed to cover the ground to insure getting back. He went on to say that that seemed to be the universally accepted figure and that no one had ever explained it. My suggestion to look at the polar was only about the above formula for best speed to cover ground. I took it as an incidental question aside from the main question and chose to address that only. I hope my answer was not taken as a suggestion about how to fly a pattern! |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd writes
On another subject, can someone describe the 45/V type approach that I've heard is used in some countries? Not sure what a "V type" is, but the circuit I've been taught to fly here in the UK, in contrast to what I understand to be the conventional right-angled power circuit, includes a "diagonal leg" flown between the downwind and base... ____ / | / v | ==== | The specific purpose, as I understand it, is to keep the intended landing point in sight of the pilot at all times enabling the pilot to continually asses the angle between himself and the landing area and thus ensure he stays within reach, cutting (or at least minimising) the risk of an undershoot. Essentially, you fly your downwind leg as normal, and as the landing area begins to disappear under the nearside wing, you turn 45 degrees in and fly the diagonal leg. At the appropriate point along the diagonal you turn onto and fly the base then make your final turn and land as normal. The length of the diagonal leg, the point you turn onto it, and how far back you go before turning onto base is entirely dependent upon conditions and circumstance. Though presumably that's true of any glider pattern, as we don't generally have the option of hitting the throttle to fix a balls up? -- Bill Gribble /---------------------------------------\ | http://www.ingenuitytest.co.uk | | http://www.cotswoldgliding.co.uk | | http://www.scapegoatsanon.demon.co.uk | \---------------------------------------/ |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
Tony Verhulst wrote: The fault was clearly my failure to use a proper landing checklist. stops laughing long enough to nod head in agreement with this wise, but slightly obvious statement :P OK, OK :-). My point was that although there were extenuating circumstances, I'm not making exuses. Although the glider wasn't damaged, my pride was. This happened at a club outing to another field and EVERYBODY was there. If I hear the saying "there are 2 kinds of pilots...." just one more time, I'm going to spit :-). Tony V. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Funny, one of the instructors at my club landed gear up...he and his cronies
said the gear collapsed. Seems to me, had the gear collapsed, he would have had at least some damage to the gear doors or had the ship checked out afterwards. IMO, he just Skipped the checklist. Jim Vincent N483SZ illspam |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Vincent wrote:
Funny, one of the instructors at my club landed gear up...he and his cronies said the gear collapsed. Seems to me, had the gear collapsed, he would have had at least some damage to the gear doors or had the ship checked out afterwards. IMO, he just Skipped the checklist. I had a gear collapse in a Discus, without any damage to the gear doors. This was due to both a worn locking mechanism and a bounce on landing, probably helped by a rabbit hole (we have a lot of them here). The sailplane was flying again when the gear retracted and so the gear doors properly closed in the air and the aircraft landed again on the CG hook. I remember the feeling of something moving in my peripheral vision field while I was looking on the runway in front of me, of course when I understood it was the gear handle moving backward, it was to late. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Funny, one of the instructors at my club landed gear up...he and his cronies
said the gear collapsed. Seems to me, had the gear collapsed, he would have had at least some damage to the gear doors or had the ship checked out afterwards. IMO, he just Skipped the checklist. I'm sure there's more to this than is written above. But in the absence of any more data, this would accurately describe many LS-1/3/4 landing gear incidents. My old LS-3 gear retracted itself twice on landing, on grass, with no damage whatsoever. The gas spring in the LS undercarriage that allows this to happen when it's worn and/or the outside air temperature is cold and/or there's dirt/friction in the landing gear mechanism has been discussed at length in this forum. Experienced owners no longer get anxious when it happens; they just get angry. The incident described may, indeed, have been a gear up landing. But there's nothing definitive in the description to indicate so. Which makes the term "IMO" particularly apt: it is just one person's opinion. That's consistent with the tone. Substitute "other experienced pilots" for "his cronies" and you send an entirely different message. Just trying to be fair, Chip Bearden |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
No. It's more like this:
------ -------- ------ ---- -- - - - - - ---------------------------- The base leg blends into downwind. Graeme Cant Mark James Boyd wrote: Bruce Hoult wrote: And why earth would you want to know that when you were in the circuit? You are surely not going to go *that* far downwind that you need best L/D into wind in order to get back. Apparently this is a significant cause of crashes (undershot landing from overshot downwind). On another subject, can someone describe the 45/V type approach that I've heard is used in some countries? Is it like this? -------------------------------\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / / / ----------------- | / | | / | | | / The Runway | --+----| ----/ | | | | | ----------------- | -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
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 03:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 05:49 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 |