Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
From 200 feet you could get half a loop in JR - Original Message - From: Graham Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop Agree Terry. Mike Valentine would have said 'This type of maneuver should always be watched from a safe distance' Terry Neumann wrote: Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder...You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
There has been a lot of theoretical discussion on this thread, but two apparently conflicting statements seem to have gone undetected. 1. If there is a cross wind, remember to turn into the wind, because the wind will then push you back to aid in lining up with the strip. 2. As soon as the land-ahead option starts closing, the flight path is diverted sideways (downwind side). Is the jury out on this one? Brian Wade ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
or 6. Go to you tube and get 6 loops of the deck. - Original Message - From: JR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop From 200 feet you could get half a loop in JR - Original Message - From: Graham Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop Agree Terry. Mike Valentine would have said 'This type of maneuver should always be watched from a safe distance' Terry Neumann wrote: Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder...You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
1. Applies AFTER the launch failure. 2. Is the technique to apply BEFORE the failure. I thought it was obvious and there's no conflict. Mike At 08:42 PM 18/09/2008, you wrote: There has been a lot of theoretical discussion on this thread, but two apparently conflicting statements seem to have gone undetected. 1. If there is a cross wind, remember to turn into the wind, because the wind will then push you back to aid in lining up with the strip. 2. As soon as the land-ahead option starts closing, the flight path is diverted sideways (downwind side). Is the jury out on this one? Brian Wade ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
At 12:16 PM 18/09/2008, you wrote: The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. Amazing! They do the maths, test on simulators and then back it up with actual flight tests and you still have doubts. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder...You can guess the rest. The old ski jumping should be banned argument lest alpine children throw themselves off cliffs en masse. The articles cover the experience levels. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. How about actually reading both articles again, carefully? Most of your objections have been answered. Landing off the airfield is unfortunately not an option in lots of cases and in those cases doing so is very hazardous. The turnback technique can be effectively practiced in a simulator and then in the real world by doing it 2000 + feet above the ground. Start at 2200 feet at the right speed and do the turn see what happens. If you do this just off the end of the runway you'll see what it takes to get back. I did this with the BD4 and needed 400 feet to get turned around . I was at 80 knots and the optimum according to the article was more like 70 knots so I'll try it again soon. I once read an article by someone who flew with Derek Piggott. On aerotow launch he used to to call 60 knots while still in ground effect. The person asked why. Derek's reply was that he could execute a 180 from there. Avoiding stalls is easy - just don't pull the stick back so far as to command the stall. That is what causes them. Those of you who think that aerotow launch failures are common should fix the problems. There did seem to be a number after the release testing/adjustment thing came out. The rings seemed to release rather easily when the release was adjusted to specification. A failure to release on aerotow is hardly an immediate emergency as there is a release on the tug end and a weak link although with poor technique and communications it is possible to make it so. Anyway I'm hopeful that in the near future corrective action for a launch failure will be to secure the failed engine and when decelerated to best single engine climb speed lower the nose a few degrees and continue. How many of you 737 drivers practice double engine failures just after takeoff in the sim? Mike Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Does anyone here have a good flight sim or Condor ? How about doing some turnbacks and getting back to us with the results. I don't have a flight sim on my PC anymore. All seems tame after taking out 5 Iranian Mirage 2000's with the gun on the MiG 29 (IR missiles were too easy) before backing into the sixth one. He cancelled burner and popped the speedbrakes to cause me to overshoot. I was a little too slow to do the same but he ran into the back of me. Mike At 02:55 PM 17/09/2008, you wrote: They don't think the optimum is 60 degrees though. Yep, I found that interesting too. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder... You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Agree Terry. Mike Valentine would have said 'This type of maneuver should always be watched from a safe distance' Terry Neumann wrote: Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Thanks Michael, This pigeon admits to being quite alarmed by some aspects of these papers =-O . Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). I certainly won't poo-poo it, because I'm not strong on scientific and reasoned discussions with professors who are clearly expert in their field. As Mike says .They did the math.. Therefore as an exercise on paper it is quite credible. Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. This suggests that whatever the math might say, it's a helluva risky manoeuvre which frequently fails to work out as the theory suggests.The concept might be plausible, even convincing, but this is no consolation if you are in the wreckage, or perhaps worse, if you are one of those who is put in the dreadful position of being the second or third person on the scene of the accident. (The first person BTW is the pilot - the second may be the instructor who was demonstrating the exercise). The difference between theory and practise is often much greater than the theory would suggest. IMHO this one such situation. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, but a pilot with lesser ability (or experience - probably both) sees it done once effectively by the club hotshot, programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, but when it does, he is 50 feet lower, 5 knots slower in speed, about the same number of seconds behind what the aircraft is thinking, and a tad excessive with the rudder...You can guess the rest. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. Terry (With apologies for possibly excessive cynicism, but pigeons can be like that if the cat is significant ) http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Thanks Terry, Unfortunately however, math or not, the history is that a lot of people who have attempted this option died in so doing. To make such a statement, you need to know the of people who have died doing this manoevure divided by number of times the manoevure is performed. I am sure that we don't hear about the majority of people that have performed this manoevure successfully without incident. As for turnbacks at 200 ft? Not if I'm around thank you! Especially if I'm on the inside of the aircraft. What would you do if there was no land ahead option (i.e. wooded area)? Landing in trees is not a low risk manoevure either. The other problem with a theoretical approach to a situation like this is that it might indeed be achievable with an above average pilot, The paper presented placed student pilots in the simulator as well. The point being made is that a pilot of average skill with appropriate training can do this manoevure safely. Thermalling turns are done at 45 degree AOB and at lower airspeed! Hence 45 degree AOB at 1.5 x Vs level (in other words at safe speed near the ground), should be a manoevure that a solo standard pilot can acheive. Again this underscores practicing the manoevure at altitude and making sure that the student can get it right. programs himself to consider the same option if it happens to him, We should all have our launch failure options clear in our minds during our pre take-off check. You can guess the rest. This is why a pilot should not be sent solo if they do not have good speed control, especially near the ground. It's usually much easier and quicker to derig the aircraft in the next paddock than to have to pick up all the pieces on the airfield. That's still how I would prefer to approach an event like this. I'm not sure if this is sufficiently rational or reasoned, but wreckage on the ground has a way of re-evaluating theoretical argument - often very dramatically. As I have said repeatedly, if you can land ahead safely, do so. This covers the situation where you can't. I am sure you could make the converse argument, seeing the wreckage in unlandable terrain off the end of the runway would be equally as sad. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
I now know why I prefer to fly gliders more than tugs/power. :-) A very interesting article: note he says sailplane pilots practise at 200 feet: not me! PeterS /What about safety? Can the average pilot successfully complete this maneuver. The simulator study indicates that training makes this maneuver reasonably safe. This should not be surprising. The turnback maneuver is well known to sailplane pilots. It is the standard maneuver when the tow rope breaks. For a sailplane, a typical starting altitude is 200 feet. Sailplane pilots are required to train for this maneuver and to perform the maneuver to successfully complete the check ride for the rating. Why not power pilots? Power pilots are required to train for and to demonstrate level stalls, departure stalls, approach stalls, forced landings, etc. to qualify for the private pilot rating. There's a lot of hostile terrain at the end of the runway, e.g., at island airports, mountain valley airports, city airports and almost any airport at night. If the engine quits on climb out, frequently, the best choice of terrain for a forced landing is behind you, on the runway. Let's train to be able to use it. / Texler, Michael wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
Don't see much to argue about. They did the math. Although there's one little thing I'd like to check. They don't think the optimum is 60 degrees though. Mike At 11:38 AM 17/09/2008, you wrote: To throw the cat amongst the pigeons. Here are some links with attached research, regarding the best way to do a 180 (if required). Any comments or disagreements? OK, if people want to poo-poo this, please provide a rational and reasoned explanation why (i.e. use a scientific and objective argument). http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/impossible/possible.html http://jeremy.zawodny.com/flying/turnback.pdf Conclusions A simplified model of the turnback maneuver after engine failure during the take-off climb segment has been developed. The model shows that optimum conditions for returning to the departure runway result from climbing at Vmax , executing a gliding turn through a 190-220deg heading change, using a 45deg bank angle at 5% above the stall velocity in the turn using a teardrop shaped flight path. P.S. Thanks to Daryl McKay for providing these links. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 Int'l + 61 429 355784 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: www.borgeltinstruments.com ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
Re: [Aus-soaring] 180 degree turns - teardrop
They don't think the optimum is 60 degrees though. Yep, I found that interesting too. ___ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
