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

We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 22nd 19, 12:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

Keep in mind, among the worst sailplanes are 20:1 or higher.
Best jets.....I have no clue, guess high single numbers?
What about a current fighter jet?!?!

Here is a nice discussion from AOPA (I am a glider pilot with some power time, but mostly joined for the lobbyist's for GA and the CFI-G insurance), but this just popped up on a newsletter....

https://pilot-protection-services.ao...t-650-part-two
  #2  
Old February 22nd 19, 05:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Clay[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is very timely. But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie
  #3  
Old February 22nd 19, 06:09 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

NP...hope it helps all of us.
  #4  
Old February 22nd 19, 06:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch gliders.Â*
In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the pilot has
the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped), continuing
to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the performance), or
motoring along to the site of the crash.Â* I don't know of any production
self-launching glider with more than one engine so an engine failure is
simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag of the
engine/prop (except in a Stemme).

If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â* Plan and be
prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an air or
ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude required to
return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure glider.Â* You
likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine hanging up
in the air stream.

On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is very timely. But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie


--
Dan, 5J
  #5  
Old February 22nd 19, 08:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
waremark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 377
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

Anyone transitioning to a self launcher should study Eric Greenwells excellent guide. https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
  #6  
Old February 22nd 19, 10:25 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Walsh[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default We all talk about

At 17:36 22 February 2019, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch

gliders.Â*
In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the

pilot has
the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped),

continuing
to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the

performance), or
motoring along to the site of the crash.Â* I don't know of

any production
self-launching glider with more than one engine so an

engine failure is
simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag

of the
engine/prop (except in a Stemme).

If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â*

Plan and be
prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an

air or
ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude

required to
return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure

glider.Â* You
likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine

hanging up
in the air stream.

On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is

very timely.
But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie

--
Dan, 5J

Stemme aside I am pretty sure all manufactures quote the
glide angle with the engine out (erected) and a wind-milling
prop. If I recall correctly a DG400 (17m) was about 12:1, a
DG808 (18m) about 14:1, the Antares 20E is about 30:1 so
depending on where the engine fails a return to the airfield
may well be feasible. The important thing is to have a mind
set during the launch that assumes the engine WILL fail,
because eventually these engines will fail.
Dave Walsh

  #7  
Old February 22nd 19, 10:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,939
Default We all talk about "oh poop planning" usually relating to near theground....another view...

Dan Marotta wrote on 2/22/2019 9:36 AM:
If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:* Plan and be prepared
to have an engine failure as you would plan for an air or ground launch failure,
only consider the added altitude required to return to the runway due to increased
drag over a pure glider.* You likely won't be able to return to the runway with an
engine hanging up in the air stream.


Good advice, but the drag of the extended mast varies significantly between
gliders. My ASH 26E losing power is about like Blanik with a rope break at the
same altitude; ie, 200' AGL is "normally" enough. It's something you can try at
altitude safely, and review your logger file later (set it to 1/sec logging rate).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

  #8  
Old February 23rd 19, 01:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default We all talk about

Yes, even the Stemme's engine (a Rotax 914 turbocharged 4-stroke engine)
can fail but, if it does, the glide ratio is...Â* 50:1.Â* Of course, if a
Stemme catches fire, it's often fatal.Â* My plan is to jump (altitude
permitting) - simple as that.

On 2/22/2019 2:25 PM, Dave Walsh wrote:
At 17:36 22 February 2019, Dan Marotta wrote:
That was great reading, but not really useful for self-launch

gliders.Â
In multi-engined aircraft, following an engine failure, the

pilot has
the option of returning to land, ejecting (if so equipped),

continuing
to a maintenance facility (if the aircraft has the

performance), or
motoring along to the site of the crash.ÂÂ* I don't know of

any production
self-launching glider with more than one engine so an

engine failure is
simply the same as a failure of a tow, except for the drag

of the
engine/prop (except in a Stemme).

If you're new to self launch gliders, consider this advice:Â

Plan and be
prepared to have an engine failure as you would plan for an

air or
ground launch failure, only consider the added altitude

required to
return to the runway due to increased drag over a pure

glider.ÂÂ* You
likely won't be able to return to the runway with an engine

hanging up
in the air stream.

On 2/22/2019 9:50 AM, Clay wrote:
As someone about to transition to a self-launcher, this is

very timely.
But great stuff for anyone. Thanks Charlie

--
Dan, 5J

Stemme aside I am pretty sure all manufactures quote the
glide angle with the engine out (erected) and a wind-milling
prop. If I recall correctly a DG400 (17m) was about 12:1, a
DG808 (18m) about 14:1, the Antares 20E is about 30:1 so
depending on where the engine fails a return to the airfield
may well be feasible. The important thing is to have a mind
set during the launch that assumes the engine WILL fail,
because eventually these engines will fail.
Dave Walsh


--
Dan, 5J
  #9  
Old February 24th 19, 01:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Walsh[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default We all talk about

Pylon self-launchers fall into 2 groups:
(i) DG400/PIK20E/DG800A/DG600M types where both the engine
and the prop and mast are sticking out into the airstream.
(ii) ASH26E/DG800B/DG808C types where just the prop and mast
are sticking out into the airstream.

If I recall correctly the DG400 certification required that DG
demonstrate an engine stopped and erected plus full air brake
landing. W Dirks (the D in DG) performed this but suffered some
minor back injury. (Well this is what I was told 30 years ago when
I first flew a DG400, I can't vouch for its accuracy).

So the advice was always to have NO air brake extended during
the round out: the sink rate with extended stopped engine is
pretty substantial. The other advice was to very aware of
turbulence from the stopped engine masking elevator feel.
Dave Walsh





  #10  
Old February 24th 19, 05:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
JS[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 624
Default We all talk about

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 4:15:05 AM UTC-8, Dave Walsh wrote:
Pylon self-launchers fall into 2 groups:
(i) DG400/PIK20E/DG800A/DG600M types where both the engine
and the prop and mast are sticking out into the airstream.
(ii) ASH26E/DG800B/DG808C types where just the prop and mast
are sticking out into the airstream.

If I recall correctly the DG400 certification required that DG
demonstrate an engine stopped and erected plus full air brake
landing. W Dirks (the D in DG) performed this but suffered some
minor back injury. (Well this is what I was told 30 years ago when
I first flew a DG400, I can't vouch for its accuracy).

So the advice was always to have NO air brake extended during
the round out: the sink rate with extended stopped engine is
pretty substantial. The other advice was to very aware of
turbulence from the stopped engine masking elevator feel.
Dave Walsh





While the normsl stall characteristics of the ASH26E are benign, stalling it with the prop up and not turning can be less predictable, as Dave suggests.
I'd suspect this to be true with any "Klappi".
Jim
 




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
Dayton Museum [260/270] - "DSC_4054 Mezzanine view.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Gramps[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 May 8th 17 01:01 AM
Anyone planning to talk about Condor at U.S. SSA convention? Frank[_12_] Soaring 1 November 17th 09 01:48 PM
Talk: “GA Planning Battles . . .” on April 17th, London, UK Chris Nicholas[_2_] Soaring 0 March 26th 09 02:00 PM
Apollo 13 pix, batch one - "Apllo 13 view of earth AS13-60-8591.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [68K] hielan' laddie Aviation Photos 0 September 9th 08 04:42 PM
Friday 072707 in Oshkosh Pt 1 - the Raptor [12/30] - "F22 another top view.jpg" yEnc (1/1) Just Plane Noise[_2_] Aviation Photos 0 July 29th 07 06:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 PM.


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