Glider Mid Air Collision at World Championships

[Bruce Tuncks]

Good points about the tail-tanks. Most water-ballast tanks are just in front of the C of G .

 

Heavy weight and forward C of G both reduce the climb performance, so both effects together are quite bad.

 

Many years ago, I asked this top pilot ( he later won the Nationals) where he had the C of G on the Libelle he used to fly. His reply was "an inch behind the aft limit" and he went on to explain that the limit was too conservatively set by nanny-state whackos who never had to fly in competitions.

 

Well I never got up the nerve to try his position, but then I never won the Nationals either.

 

He never spun out of a thermal, but I don't want to see this idea copied by people who might just spin out on top of me.

 

 

[facthunter]

With rearward CofG, you get more aerodynamic efficiency with the downside of loss of some pitch stability. The control of your plane becomes more critical at the limits. Speed coupled with a higher sink rate, gets you across a distance faster but is your enemy when thermalling or to a lesser extent when slopesoaring.

 

A conventional aircraft (non canard) flies with a download on the tail normally. This counts as extra weight as far as the wing is concerned. The negative lift on the tail is also an aerodynamic penalty . IF the tail can carry some of the load it's the most efficient set up, but can be dangerous. You need to know what you are doing. Nev

 

 

[Exadios]

More of the same.

[diesel]

Well there is film from year's ago doing aerobatics on tow.

 

Even swapping aircraft in flight.

 

No wonder they pulled a wing off a Blanik.

 

Chas

 

 

[Exadios]

Well there is film from year's ago doing aerobatics on tow.Even swapping aircraft in flight.

No wonder they pulled a wing off a Blanik.

 

Chas

Huh?

 

 

[Oscar]

Red Bull Glider Aerobatics team; had been doing things in Blaniks that they weren't supposed to do anyway, with an ex-air force - possibly Romanian?, I can't remember - that had unknown hours, launches ( both type and number) and unknown general use history. That caused the grounding of ALL Blaniks, world-wide, with the exception of the Australian-modded ones.

 

 

[Exadios]

Red Bull Glider Aerobatics team; had been doing things in Blaniks that they weren't supposed to do anyway, with an ex-air force - possibly Romanian?, I can't remember - that had unknown hours, launches ( both type and number) and unknown general use history. That caused the grounding of ALL Blaniks, world-wide, with the exception of the Australian-modded ones.

And?

 

 

[Oscar]

No 'And?' answer... but a whole lot of small Clubs lost their investment in an ab-initio trainer-glider overnight. Blaniks had trained - to a good standard - possibly hundreds of thousands of pilots over the years. They were a decent thing to fly - albeit not sexy - and pretty cheap to run in the main. And they didn't kill people from nasty habits.

 

About the best parallel I could think ( since Blaniks were the most populous glider produced), would be the total grounding of all C172's because one being used for a stunt plane had shed a wing. Possibly justified, but with huge consequences for GA world-wide.

 

 

[Exadios]

No 'And?' answer... but a whole lot of small Clubs lost their investment in an ab-initio trainer-glider overnight. Blaniks had trained - to a good standard - possibly hundreds of thousands of pilots over the years. They were a decent thing to fly - albeit not sexy - and pretty cheap to run in the main. And they didn't kill people from nasty habits.About the best parallel I could think ( since Blaniks were the most populous glider produced), would be the total grounding of all C172's because one being used for a stunt plane had shed a wing. Possibly justified, but with huge consequences for GA world-wide.

No doubt all of that is true. But what's it got to do will two gliders colliding at the WGC?