A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 12th 16, 01:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ramy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 601
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

Unless you fly in completely stable air, the post flight analysis L/D has more to do with the soaring conditions and how well you utilize energy lines, than glider performance.

Ramy
  #12  
Old July 12th 16, 03:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Soartech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 268
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 8:22:38 PM UTC-4, Ramy wrote:
Unless you fly in completely stable air, the post flight analysis L/D has more to do with the soaring conditions and how well you utilize energy lines, than glider performance.

Ramy


Ramy, Are "energy lines" actually lift streets? That name makes it sound like some sort of mystical experience.
  #13  
Old July 12th 16, 03:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 5:22:38 PM UTC-7, Ramy wrote:
Unless you fly in completely stable air, the post flight analysis L/D has more to do with the soaring conditions and how well you utilize energy lines, than glider performance.

Ramy


While that is true, flights done from a high tow in early morning stable conditions specifically to measure performance, might be usefully analyzed from logged data. Set the logger to 1 second intervals, pilot comment each change of speed, etc.

You would still need to correct the data to standard atmosphere, which I believe DJ did.
  #14  
Old July 12th 16, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
SoaringXCellence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

Energy lines are not necessarily "lift streets' but rather the selection of a path through the air that results in the least energy lost. Many times a reduction in sinking airmass is the gain.
  #15  
Old July 12th 16, 05:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

Hi

Thank you to all that replied. Glider RN and a reply I have received privately, provided all the information I require. To conduct such a test is clearly an exacting endeavor, requiring a thorough preparation.

On the positive side, I have thoroughly enjoyed a flight in utterly still air ( I have not yet experienced wave flight). Also thanks Martin for suggesting Akafliegs, I am sure their method would also be informative.

Cheers

Paul
  #16  
Old July 12th 16, 07:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

The method by Dick Johnson works for gliders with limited performance. Even in "still air conditions", which are typically found in meterological high pressure regions, there are wide-area vertical movements of air. There is no way that the method by DJ can work them out. They are just a few cm/s - so if you try to measure a 1:30 or 1:35 ship, that's not a big deal.

Now, if you are measuring a ship with 1:45, a 5 cm/s air mass movement will give you an error of 7%, or about 3 points.

That's why in Europe, DJ measurements are widely disregarded.

Instead, we have the Idaflieg (which is kind of the federation of Akafliegs) doing their measurements in collaboration with DLR (the German Research Institute for Aerospace). These measurements are based on two key points:
One is a calibrated (the "sacred") glider, which has been an Open Cirrus, then a DG300-17 and now I think it is a Discus 2/18. This glider is measured ynd calibrated extensively (takes about 1-2 years).
Second key point is that the glider to be measured flies in parallal to the calibrated glider, and in the basic form of the measurement, pictures of both gliders are taken after each intervall of flying at a defined speed. By using the (precisely known) fuselage length of the calibrated glider, you can get the vertical distance between the gliders very precisely.

This method gets rid of any air mass movement and is very accurate. It comes at a steep cost though: a calibrated glider (which is used for nothing else), two tow planes to FL120 at 5 p.m., and one of the tow planes flying alongside the gliders during the descent.

Bert
Ventus cM "TW" (measured by Idaflieg to 1:47 ;-) )
  #17  
Old July 12th 16, 08:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 77
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

The problem with the Idaflieg/DLR measurements is that they are not simply made available to the larger public.

There seems to be a kind of secrecy agreement between the Akafliegs/Idaflieg and the (mainly German) sailplane manufacturers to keep the results under wraps for a number of years (at least two, if my information is correct), and even then, you won't find them simply in the soaring press, you'll have to ask them to the Idaflieg...

The German (and other) manufacturers no longer publish the polars of new sailplanes in the flight manual either (fear of being proven too optimistic?).. So if you want to calibrate a flight computer, you have to guess what the true polar might be.

That's why, however imperfect, the Johnson measurements have been widely disseminated in the past. They were readily available: as soon as they were published in Soaring, they were translated and published in the international soaring press... much to the chagrin of most manufacturers, because they usually were worse than the claimed values (yes, manufacturers used to put an "official" polar in the flight manual in the old days!).
  #18  
Old July 12th 16, 09:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

Thanks Bert

That is all well and good if you are in Europe, have connection to Akaflieg and want to spend a lot of money. I guess it may make sense to review a glider, but it simply is not practical elsewhere. So I guess if you wish to obtain a reasonable measurements you may as well use the best method available that fits the conditions where one flies. I have not yet verified your assertion regarding the error with your stated parameters regarding the vertical movement of the airmass one is flying through. Nor am I a good enough meteorologist to know how likely is it that the whole airmass would be uniformly moving up a down over a distance required to loose 1000ft over flat lands without wind that may cause sheerwave.


Finally, I would think that enough people with requisite knowledge looked at Dick J work, yet there is not a great deal of criticisms floating about. But as you say, Concordia may not be a suitable candidate.

Cheers

Paul
  #19  
Old July 12th 16, 09:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bruce Hoult
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 961
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:58:20 PM UTC+12, wrote:
The problem with the Idaflieg/DLR measurements is that they are not simply made available to the larger public.

There seems to be a kind of secrecy agreement between the Akafliegs/Idaflieg and the (mainly German) sailplane manufacturers to keep the results under wraps for a number of years (at least two, if my information is correct), and even then, you won't find them simply in the soaring press, you'll have to ask them to the Idaflieg...

The German (and other) manufacturers no longer publish the polars of new sailplanes in the flight manual either (fear of being proven too optimistic?). So if you want to calibrate a flight computer, you have to guess what the true polar might be.

That's why, however imperfect, the Johnson measurements have been widely disseminated in the past. They were readily available: as soon as they were published in Soaring, they were translated and published in the international soaring press... much to the chagrin of most manufacturers, because they usually were worse than the claimed values (yes, manufacturers used to put an "official" polar in the flight manual in the old days!).


The good news is that it is not actually necessary to know the precise performance of your particular glider or even glider type in order to fly it close enough to optimally. Any roughly similar polar (and they are all roughly similar in a given class) will do the job. The information you want is "how fast should I fly" and that is neither very critical (+/- 5 knots is fine) nor very different from one glider to another.

What does vary is the total height loss over an extended run e.g. a final glide. I don't think there's any option but to see if you consistently come out above or below your expected height loss and use that to make a correction in the programmed polar.
  #20  
Old July 12th 16, 09:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Dick Johnson methodology for measuring glider performance

The air mass in an anticyclone generally sinks over its whole area. That's what generates the wind which turns clockwise around an anticyclone (northern hemisphere).

I agree that just for programming the polar into the flight computer, the actual precision does not matter much.

As to the Idaflieg measurements - there is no secrecy involved. Manufacturers put their gliders at disposition for those measurements, and no data will be published in the first two years. This stems from the times of Nimbus 3 vs ASW22 - with people looking only at best L/D, one of the two gliders being published with 2 points more would have made the other manufacturer go bankrupt.

The data is not published anywhere. If you're interested in a measurement of your type of glider, you send Idaflieg a request by email. If it exists, they will send you a paper copy, and a bill of about 10-15 Euros.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dick Johnson Clint Soaring 4 June 6th 09 10:40 PM
Texas Glider Rally / Dick Johnson Wave Camp April 4 - 11 at Marfa Burt Compton - Marfa Soaring 2 March 27th 09 06:55 PM
Dick Johnson is gone. Burt Compton - Marfa Soaring 23 July 27th 08 05:38 PM
Dick Johnson's FTE of the Discus-2 Flavio Formosa Soaring 1 January 18th 07 03:18 PM
Contacts of Dick Johnson Francisco De Almeida Soaring 1 January 1st 06 06:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.