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
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:20:46 PM UTC-7, danlj wrote:
Comments below force a response. 1: the most efficient calibrated airspeed for progress over the ground DOES vary with the wind. A published rule of thumb is with a headwind, add 1/3 the headwind component to best glide; with a tailwind, fly at minimum sink. Not to maximise speed in continuous cross-country soaring from one thermal to another, no. That depends only on the expected lift in the next thermal and the polar. For a final glide to a fixed point on the ground -- airport, turnpoint (where you are going to significantly change direction), mountain peak or ridge -- then yes you should change your speed roughly as you indicate. 3: Does anyone on this forum actually ever do the research before replying? Just curious. The B/S ratio applies to more than thermals... Some of us do, yes. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
MacCready theory optimises cross-country speed over a closed course with the assumption that wind speed and direction are constant throughout the course and independent of altitude. These assumptions are approximately true most of the time, so departing from MacCready speed has little benefit. However, if there is a leg where this is not true, the optimum airspeed may be different. A downwind dash would be a special case of this.
I did some numerical simulations some years ago for the case where one is flying to a turn point against a strong wind and found a faster speed into wind followed by a slower speed after the turn was marginally better. Clearly, if your computer tells you to fly at 60 knots against a 60 knot headwind, you are not going anywhere! Another issue is that you have to maintain sufficient altitude to connect with the next thermal. This may require trading off speed for altitude and experienced cross-country pilots have their own rules for dealing with these circumstances. Flight computers and associated software are imperfect at dealing with these more complex issues which are up to the pilot to solve. Mike |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
For thermal XC if your computer is telling you to fly at 60kts then you're
probably flying dry and have MacCready set pretty low. So no you won't get anywhere. You need to climb faster and set MacCready higher The wind only affects the rate of climb you need to make progress, speed to fly between climbs is determined by "normal" MacCready Flying Ridges or Wave, or final gliding to a fixed point, is a different ball game KN At 07:44 18 June 2019, Mike the Strike wrote: Clear= ly, if your computer tells you to fly at 60 knots against a 60 knot headwin= d, you are not going anywhere! = |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
Simple table that tells you how much to increase MC at certain headwind component would be enough to solve this issue.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:20:46 PM UTC-7, danlj wrote:
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 at 2:05:01 PM UTC-5, danlj wrote: I'm curious. After two successive near-midairs about 5 years ago, I installed PowerFlarm and a transponder that wouldn't deplete my battery during flight. This required, due lack of panel space, that I give up my beloved ILEC S-10 flight computer (and its remote control). An Oudie IGC and and S-80 were recommended to replace it. The change has led to some conclusions about what flight computers should do in the cockpit. 1: Speed to fly Flight computers all seem to calculate wind, and to be able to use the glider's polar. Not all use wind to revise STF. It seems to me that we could use two rather different STF indications: A: expected arrival altitude at next waypoint given polar, altitude, wind, and and optionally achieved mean L/D B: best immediate speed for optimal L/D given polar, wind, and lift/sink over the last X seconds (user selectable) (does any current flight computer offer these sorts of enhancements?) 2: Waypoint modification Requiring the pilot to make an alphabetic search during flight to make a waypoint change is beyond stupid (it's a dangerous distraction). - There are too many options for naming waypoints - recalling which name it was given is sometimes impossible. - seldom are ICAO designations used, which aren't in any case easier to recall. It seems to me that the best UI would have the ability to quickly limit the waypoint choices and swiftly move through the limited choices by spinning a knob or touch-pressing a knob-equivalent. One is faced with either - the need to modify one or more waypoints of a task - the need to create a new task, the simplest of which is direct-to Logical ways to create a limited set of waypoint choices include: - distance (I think everybody offers this) - direction (bearing, heading, or azimuth) - distance & direction - waypoints near current leg - waypoints near current task Do any current flight computers offer waypoint selection direction as well as distance? Danl J Comments below force a response. 1: the most efficient calibrated airspeed for progress over the ground DOES vary with the wind. A published rule of thumb is with a headwind, add 1/3 the headwind component to best glide; with a tailwind, fly at minimum sink. Jean Marie Clement has created a beautiful graph showing that the most efficient CAS against headwind is a curve -- it looks like it's an hyperbola. It's reproduced on page 51 of Brigliadoris' Competing in Gliders. 2: The Oudie IGC manual is quite clear that ONLY polar and pre-set MacCready are used in calculating speed to fly and arrival altitude. Wind is specifically not used in their calculation, and you can of course set your MacCready to the mean climb in the last thermal if you like. The S8x manual does not indicate whether current lift/sink is used to modify the instant STF arrows indication, nor whether wind is taken into account. The STF *is* based on the next waypoint, polar, and (I think) MacCready.. I haven't used this, and will reconfigure my S80 now that I've updated the firmware and watch its behavior. 3: Does anyone on this forum actually ever do the research before replying? Just curious. The B/S ratio applies to more than thermals... From the Oudie IGC manual: . Arrival altitude (Arrival) = Expected Arrival altitude at the selected waypoint calculated by taking the distance, MC, wind, glider polar, bugs and ballast into account "As a published rule of thumb is with a headwind, add 1/3 the headwind component to best glide; with a tailwind, fly at minimum sink.Can you clarify what you mean by this, when you are flying min sink downwind, everyone else will be passing you, fast! The S80 can search waypoints by nearest now, it's a feature that was added a year or two ago due to request. The Oudie can sort points based on distance, and it will keep this sorting method until you change it. It can also filter the entire database in a variety of ways, very useful for general flying. Good luck. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:43:16 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
Simple table that tells you how much to increase MC at certain headwind component would be enough to solve this issue. Unfortunately not. The problem of optimum MacCready speed in wind relates to both wind shear and the relative horizontal velocity of the thermals. With a uniform atmosphere in which the wind speed is constant with height and in which thermals move at the same speed as the wind, standard MacCready theory applies. In these ideal conditions, there is no advantage in changing speed upwind or downwind. In the case where thermals move more slowly than the wind (the more general case) or where they don't move at all (wave), the optimal speed will generally be faster upwind and slower downwind. This is what many experienced cross-country pilots have intuitively figured out in the real world. Mathematical analyses of these have been done by several folks, including John Cochrane and Branko Stojkovic. Long enough ago to be forgotten. The solution of speed to fly with wind is not easy, since the effects of wind shear and thermal speed are variable and may not be known well enough for a satisfactory general mathematical solution. Mike |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 5:34:40 PM UTC-4, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:43:16 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote: Simple table that tells you how much to increase MC at certain headwind component would be enough to solve this issue. Unfortunately not. The problem of optimum MacCready speed in wind relates to both wind shear and the relative horizontal velocity of the thermals. With a uniform atmosphere in which the wind speed is constant with height and in which thermals move at the same speed as the wind, standard MacCready theory applies. In these ideal conditions, there is no advantage in changing speed upwind or downwind. In the case where thermals move more slowly than the wind (the more general case) or where they don't move at all (wave), the optimal speed will generally be faster upwind and slower downwind. This is what many experienced cross-country pilots have intuitively figured out in the real world. Mathematical analyses of these have been done by several folks, including John Cochrane and Branko Stojkovic. Long enough ago to be forgotten. The solution of speed to fly with wind is not easy, since the effects of wind shear and thermal speed are variable and may not be known well enough for a satisfactory general mathematical solution. Mike Thank you Mike. But a saving grace is that the achieved XC speed for some range around the optimum STF does not vary very much, exactly because it is an optimum: it is the top of a roundish hump in the curve. In that sense a "simple table", or even a rough guess, of the correction, if any, for the wind, is "enough". Lacking precise data on the local shear etc, fancier methods wouldn't do any better. And, to paraphrase UH, the left-and-right controls are far more important (for task speed) than the up-and-down. Deviate to where the air is half a knot sweeter and you'll get there faster, even if your STF is 10 knots off. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
Indeed, the wind question is mostly academic as we rarely fly long cross-country tasks in wind speeds that make a big difference. Identifying convergence (and divergence) lines and dealing with long distances between thermals are more useful problems to solve. MacCready theory optimises your speed between thermals but doesn’t tell you what to do when you get low or can't find a thermal (John Cochrane wrote a paper on this too). Perhaps this is something that smarter flight computers could address?
Mike |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Wednesday, 19 June 2019 00:34:40 UTC+3, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:43:16 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote: Simple table that tells you how much to increase MC at certain headwind component would be enough to solve this issue. Unfortunately not. The problem of optimum MacCready speed in wind relates to both wind shear and the relative horizontal velocity of the thermals. With a uniform atmosphere in which the wind speed is constant with height and in which thermals move at the same speed as the wind, standard MacCready theory applies. In these ideal conditions, there is no advantage in changing speed upwind or downwind. In the case where thermals move more slowly than the wind (the more general case) or where they don't move at all (wave), the optimal speed will generally be faster upwind and slower downwind. This is what many experienced cross-country pilots have intuitively figured out in the real world. Mathematical analyses of these have been done by several folks, including John Cochrane and Branko Stojkovic. Long enough ago to be forgotten. The solution of speed to fly with wind is not easy, since the effects of wind shear and thermal speed are variable and may not be known well enough for a satisfactory general mathematical solution. Mike I'm aware of all this. You either fly towards fixed spot on the ground (final glide), or towards cloud or thermal. We can approximate that your home airfield does not move with the wind at all and thermal moves at wind speed (which is does not, of course, but this is approximation). Final glide to fixed spot you would increase mc to take wind into account, glide to next thermal you would (mostly) not as it will be blown towards you at wind speed. This simple idea turned into mc value to increase or subtract would get you 99% of the theoretically optimum glide speed. We do not have to worry about exact figure as we can maintain certain airspeed at maybe 5% accuracy. Accuracy above that has only academic interest. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
flight computer ergonomics and function
On Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 8:09:12 AM UTC-4, krasw wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 June 2019 00:34:40 UTC+3, Mike the Strike wrote: On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 7:43:16 AM UTC-7, krasw wrote: Simple table that tells you how much to increase MC at certain headwind component would be enough to solve this issue. Unfortunately not. The problem of optimum MacCready speed in wind relates to both wind shear and the relative horizontal velocity of the thermals. With a uniform atmosphere in which the wind speed is constant with height and in which thermals move at the same speed as the wind, standard MacCready theory applies. In these ideal conditions, there is no advantage in changing speed upwind or downwind. In the case where thermals move more slowly than the wind (the more general case) or where they don't move at all (wave), the optimal speed will generally be faster upwind and slower downwind. This is what many experienced cross-country pilots have intuitively figured out in the real world. Mathematical analyses of these have been done by several folks, including John Cochrane and Branko Stojkovic. Long enough ago to be forgotten. The solution of speed to fly with wind is not easy, since the effects of wind shear and thermal speed are variable and may not be known well enough for a satisfactory general mathematical solution. Mike I'm aware of all this. You either fly towards fixed spot on the ground (final glide), or towards cloud or thermal. We can approximate that your home airfield does not move with the wind at all and thermal moves at wind speed (which is does not, of course, but this is approximation). Final glide to fixed spot you would increase mc to take wind into account, glide to next thermal you would (mostly) not as it will be blown towards you at wind speed. This simple idea turned into mc value to increase or subtract would get you 99% of the theoretically optimum glide speed. We do not have to worry about exact figure as we can maintain certain airspeed at maybe 5% accuracy. Accuracy above that has only academic interest. (Telling the experienced guys what they already know...) If you have enough wind that there is the motivation to use something other than a MC 2 - 3 (kts) final glide value, you can't (sensibly, at least) plan a skinny final glide under any circumstances. If you have that much wind in the working band, you will have wind shear that has to be considered (but can only be guessed at) and you most likely will have to at least consider the possibility of wave lift & sink. The academic interest is simply a mathematical puzzle, nothing more, no utility. I like the fact that there's still a role for a smart, experienced PIC :-). best, T8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SteFly Flight Computer | [email protected] | Soaring | 2 | November 26th 16 07:00 PM |
DIY Flight-Computer | Kilo-Bravo | Soaring | 21 | February 22nd 15 08:59 PM |
New technologies flight computer | Ed Gaddy[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | July 14th 08 03:41 PM |
Antique Flight Computer | James Hamilton | Soaring | 0 | January 5th 06 07:04 PM |
Instrumentation ergonomics | tango4 | Soaring | 13 | September 8th 03 04:16 PM |