Mike Borgelt wrote:
> At 01:30 PM 12/09/01 +0930, you wrote:
> >The Kingfisher was a hardy little beast though;
>
> If that is the Clare Gliding Club Kingfisher, it is the one I did my Silver
> C in. Completed the 5 hours with a 145 km flight Cunderdin-Narrogin with no
> wind assistance, Decembe
At 01:30 PM 12/09/01 +0930, you wrote:
>The Kingfisher was a hardy little beast though;
If that is the Clare Gliding Club Kingfisher, it is the one I did my Silver
C in. Completed the 5 hours with a 145 km flight Cunderdin-Narrogin with no
wind assistance, December 1968.
Regarding the wind shea
Gee, I'm glad that things weren't all this complicated when I was a pupil
35 years ago.
At that time in the Mark IV Kookaburra with the old side valve Ford V8
winch, circa post WWII, it's manual clutch and 950 feet launches - perhaps
1100 if the wind bloweth - there was absolutely no time to con
> The safe speed (1.5 x Vs) should provide adequate margin for gusts,
^^
"should" but "doesn't".
K13 = 30 kts stall = 45kts (1.5vs), In a turn stall speed ~= 35kts.
Now is 10kts of wind sheer at 500' possible on a day gusting to say
30kts?
You be the judge.
P.
ovide adequate margin for gusts,
thermals, wind sheer, etc.
cheers
David
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
>Rundle
>Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2001 10:39 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [aus-soar
] airbrake v 1.5Vs and half brake approach and the panel prefers
the former - the latter can lead to pupils flying close to the ground in
check two for extended periods]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Greg Quick
Sent: 10 September 2001 4:34
> Wind gradient occurs due to wind friction with the ground.
And what about wind sheer? Wind gradient and wind sheer are not one
and the same thing!
--
* You are subscribed to the aus-soaring mailing list.
* To Unsubscribe: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* with "unsubscribe aus-soaring"
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
>Rundle
>Sent: Tuesday, 11 September 2001 8:15 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
>
>
>Two things that bother me about this thread,
>
>All of the discussion has centred around the extra work
$2,200,000
http://www.rslartunion.com
To be drawn on 17 October 2001
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE IN IT TO WIN IT!
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher H Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 7:21 PM
Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind
Some interesting posts on workloads and perceived workloads at various
stages of the circuit. My two bob's worth is that I will not ignore a
sudden change in the wind sock's demeanour at any stage on final regardless
of the workload. If the student has trouble then they havn't finished
learni
I would just like to point out that the adding of "Half the windspeed" on
base leg (i.e. increasing speed to final approach speed) was part of the
training syllabus when I started gliding in 1978, and it is stated in my
early 1980s copy of the Instructor's Handbook (page 8-7 refers for those
that
ase Safe Speed near the ground during windy
conditions
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter
White
Sent: Sunday, 9 September 2001 8:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
Gents and Ladies,
The compl
For the record, John Parncutt stated:
> in my view flying a slower circuit then relying on memory to add the
additional speed on base when the student is under maximum load adds
additional risk
I did not state the above as would be suggested by Greg Quick's posting.
Also, on a windy gusty day,
The 1950/60's NGS's got the majority of the gliding rules and procedures
spot-on. Any fiddling around the edges should have clear saftey
improvements and solid fustification. The wind allowanace debate has been
going on since about 1990 when the rules were changed without general
acceptance, wit
At 08:23 PM 9/09/01 +1000, you wrote:
>Gents and Ladies,
>
>The complex and thought out answers you guys provide always seem to miss
>the basic points.
>
>Why do we add half the wind to our circuit speed?
>
>I don't think it is because of gusts, although they are a factor which
>needs to be cons
- Original Message -
From: "Michael L. Texler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
> >
> > I note that Michael stated - "versus the common practice of added 1/
And the Correct answer is:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wind Gradient
Original Message -
From: "Peter White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 9 September 2001 20:23
Subject: Re: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
>
At 09:40 PM 8/09/01 +1000, you Stuart Ferguson wrote:
> A pilot is far better prepared for
>flight ifs they remain flexible to change, because inflexible pilots soon
>become stiffs.
>
>SDF
Howdy Stewie,
Do Tasmanian fisherman think that AUSAR is inflexible? Or do they wish you
guys were more f
Gents and Ladies,
The complex and thought out answers you guys provide always seem to miss
the basic points.
Why do we add half the wind to our circuit speed?
I don't think it is because of gusts, although they are a factor which
needs to be considered.
I don't think it is because the MOSP s
>
> I note that Michael stated - "versus the common practice of added 1/2 wind
> speed on the base
> leg." Of course this is not just a "common practice", it should be
> universal, being in accordance with the Instructors Manual (pp 62)
>
I used the words common practice intentionally, since the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
I agree that the changes are good.
Time in the circuit?
I did some _very_ rough calculations based on (for want of a number) 700m
downwind.
50 to 55kts will shorten the time on downwind by about roughly 8 seconds.
Solution
IT TO WIN IT!
- Original Message -
From: "Philip Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
> I agree that the changes are good.
>
> Time in the circuit?
>
rri Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
>Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 21:40:23 +1000
>
>Having been brought up as a power pilot, and being a recent convert to
>gliding, I
Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John
>Parncutt
>Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2001 5:29 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
>
>
>When JOINING the circuit the check is FUST - Flaps set as requ
ECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John
>Parncutt
>Sent: Saturday, 8 September 2001 5:29 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [aus-soaring] Downwind leg airspeed
>
>
>When JOINING the circuit the check is FUST - Flaps set as required,
>Undercarridge down and lo
When JOINING the circuit the check is FUST - Flaps set as required,
Undercarridge down and locked and SPEED followed by Trim to that speed.
The circuit speed must clearly be set at that point allowing for anticipated
wind speed on the ground.
Students should be taught not to vary that speed once
I agree with Michael. Students are already busy enough on the downwind leg
without needlessly reducing the time that they have available to make the
radio call, do their checks and assess/adjust their flight path as necessary
to achieve the desired approach path.
Having just spent some time rein
27 matches
Mail list logo
