ASW 20B Opinions
Student
2) Can you keep the wing pitot and turbulator jets clear?
3) Are there mechanism problems with the interconnected ailerons
and flaps?
4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
heights?
5) What ship would you chose to replace this one?
Thanks! and may the Wave rise to meet you!
Ian Molesworth
Student <stu...@clouddancer.com> wrote in message
news:37B93D0B...@clouddancer.com...
> 1) Can it handle 200 lbs and 6'1" ?
Yes and Yes
> 2) Can you keep the wing pitot and turbulator jets clear?
Yes
> 3) Are there mechanism problems with the interconnected ailerons
> and flaps?
No
> 4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
> heights?
The glider can, watch the pilot though.
> 5) What ship would you chose to replace this one?
An ASW 28, or if money was no object a Nimbus 4dm. An LS4, LS8 or Discus. Do
you really need the Flaps ?
Eric Greenwell
i...@imolesworth.demon.co.uk says...
=
= Student <stu...@clouddancer.com> wrote in message
= news:37B93D0B...@clouddancer.com...
= > 1) Can it handle 200 lbs and 6'1" ?
=
= Yes and Yes
=
= > 2) Can you keep the wing pitot and turbulator jets clear?
=
= Yes
=
= > 3) Are there mechanism problems with the interconnected ailerons
= > and flaps?
=
= No
=
= > 4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
= > heights?
=
= The glider can, watch the pilot though.
=
= > 5) What ship would you chose to replace this one?
=
= An ASW 28, or if money was no object a Nimbus 4dm. An LS4, LS8 or Discus. Do
= you really need the Flaps ?
I chose a ASH 26 E to replace my ASW 20 C (like the B, but with lighter
wings and a lower gross weight), in part because I like the shorter,
steeper landings produced by the flaps in the landing position.
How much experience do you have, and in what aircraft? I know we are all
"students" to some extent, but your newsgroup name (Student) suggests
you may not have a lot of flying time.
--
>>Delete the "REMOVE" from my e-mail address to reply by e-mail<<
Eric Greenwell
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
I can only write about the "old" 20 which is very similar:
>1) Can it handle 200 lbs and 6'1" ?
Yes.
>
>2) Can you keep the wing pitot and turbulator jets clear?
Yes.
>
>3) Are there mechanism problems with the interconnected ailerons
> and flaps?
No.
>
>4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
> heights?
Yes.
>
>5) What ship would you chose to replace this one?
None that has been invented yet.
Bye
Andreas
Student
> How much experience do you have, and in what aircraft? I know we are all
> "students" to some extent, but your newsgroup name (Student) suggests
> you may not have a lot of flying time.
You bring up an interesting question, is there a flapped trainer?
P.S. "Student" was selected two years ago. I fly at Minden, in Grobs.
Bert Willing
Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:44:27 -0700, Student <stu...@clouddancer.com>
> wrote:
>
> I can only write about the "old" 20 which is very similar:
>
> >
> >4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
> > heights?
> Yes.
> >
The 20B/C is a bit different here. If the c/g is in ther rear range (of
the legal range), stall behavior can become an issue. There have been a
couple of nasty accidents in Germany, and I once was quite stunned when
the sky turned green unexpectedly. Recovery is more than easy, but one
should not play this game below 300 ft.
--
Bert Willing
-----------
Caproni Calif A21S D-6600
Come fly at La Motte du Caire in the French Alps:
http://www.decollage.org/la_motte/
Bert Willing
Student wrote:
>
> You bring up an interesting question, is there a flapped trainer?
Janus and Calif in the 20m wingspan range. You also can train on a ASH25 or
Nimbus 3/4D, but that wouldn't help you very much on flying 15m flaps (but
it's fun :-)
Andreas Maurer
<bert.w...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>> >4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
>> > heights?
>> Yes.
>> >
>
>The 20B/C is a bit different here. If the c/g is in ther rear range (of
>the legal range), stall behavior can become an issue. There have been a
>couple of nasty accidents in Germany, and I once was quite stunned when
>the sky turned green unexpectedly. Recovery is more than easy, but one
>should not play this game below 300 ft.
The same goes for the old 20 (L) with non-forward CG and flap setting
4.
Bye
Andreas
Nolaminar
spin by accident any more than any other glass glider? Why did 20 get the
reputation?
Eric Greenwell
= > >4) Can it deal with a small irregular (but strong) thermal at low
= > > heights?
= > Yes.
= > >
=
= The 20B/C is a bit different here. If the c/g is in ther rear range (of
= the legal range), stall behavior can become an issue
Ok, I'm curious: how does the stall behavior change, and how close to
the aft end of the CG range must it be to act badly? I flew my ASW 20 C
for 1500 hours with the CG about 65% of the range without a single
surprise. I was always told the "A" model was more likely to "surprise".
= There have been a
= couple of nasty accidents in Germany, and I once was quite stunned when
= the sky turned green unexpectedly. Recovery is more than easy, but one
= should not play this game below 300 ft.
My belief is you should be landing, not thermalling, below 300 feet, in
any sailplane.
Robert Perry
The problem ( pleasure ? ) with the 20a , at least with mine is as follows: With
the flaps
in the 55 degree or 1 less position landing configuration a stall happens with the
horizon in the
normal glide position. If you lower the flaps and do not lower the nose you WILL
stall. Also
the 20 decelerates very fast in the landing configuration ( I like this ).
If the 20 does stall it WILL roll over on you. Ive found it to do
at least one full turn no matter what I do ( don't try this in your livingroom or
low altitude ).
I'm a bit sketchy on the reputation, But I do know the 20 killed a very
experienced ( I think NASA )
pilot after a contest finish and pull up. The theory is that after the pull up he
put the gear and
flaps down, turned back for a short downwind and spun in. I heard this second
hand.
On a lighter note though, I have worked some rough thermals at low altitude ( and
found
out later that it was a roter after bumping to the top into laminer lift to 16.5K
) and found
the 20 to be very forgiving in the thermal flap settings. It gives plenty of
buffet and has
very nice control harmony plus nice roll rate.
Like any other glider the 20 can kill you very quickly. The large flaps and the
high flap
settings have given it some notoriety, but I love them. I just got up the courage
to use full
flaps for landing the other day and all I can say is WOW, very steep glide path
low energy
touchdown, all the things that make for a safe off field landing.
Bert Willing
Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Ok, I'm curious: how does the stall behavior change, and how close to
> the aft end of the CG range must it be to act badly? I flew my ASW 20 C
> for 1500 hours with the CG about 65% of the range without a single
> surprise. I was always told the "A" model was more likely to "surprise".
I cannot compare to the A models which I never have flown. The C I've flown
should have been with its CG in the last 10-15%, and the _dynamic_ stall
behaviour was pretty close to a half flick roll. This only applied to flaps
in position 4 - I then became curious and tested spinning in all
configurations, but all flap settings exept the 4 were completely boring.
>
> = There have been a
> = couple of nasty accidents in Germany, and I once was quite stunned when
> = the sky turned green unexpectedly. Recovery is more than easy, but one
> = should not play this game below 300 ft.
>
> My belief is you should be landing, not thermalling, below 300 feet, in
> any sailplane.
So do I (in flat countries, in the Alps I often thermal in 10.000 ft MSL but
300 ft AGL) , so did they. Back in '86 or '85 in Germany, there were three
pilots killed in 20C's during winch launch incidents, and one pilot of our
club did very much the same but with more luck. He had aborted the launch
because of lack of speed in about 300 ft, put the glider into normal pitch
and started to turn _without_ checking the ASI. He spun a full turn and
recovered in just about the height to touch down straight ahead. He too had
been in a configuration of the CG in the last 10%. I will accept anybodies
claim that this procedure is one of the best ways to get killed by any
glider.
Anyhow, that was the very point when we decided not to let our student
pilots fly the 20 anymore but to restrict them to our Discus (just a kick
for our US community on club fleet policy, couldn't help ... :-)
Robert Perry
I guess I forgot to say it seems to only do this in the landing flap config. I
have not found this tendancy with cruise or thermal flap.
Robert Whelan
>Can anyone seriously expand on the old 20 problem of spins? What causes a
20 to
>spin by accident any more than any other glass glider? Why did 20 get the
>reputation?
I asked myself these same questions ca. 1981...and have continued to ponder
'em since. Reason for my interest? I was considering purchasing either an
AS W-20, PIK-20 or Zuni back then. All large-deflection landing-flapped
ships. Rummaging through "Soaring" (when it still named names/ship-types in
thumbnails of accidents), I had a list of pilots who had died in "apparent
stall-spin" AS W-20 accidents. It contained some well-known and higher time
pilots, as well as some lower time ones.
In my mind, the jury is still out with respect to Nolaminar's questions, and
may remain out until we all pass on. Still, it's human nature to seek to
assign reasons for observed events, particularly events intimately
influenced by human activity (e.g. piloting). I posit several possible
contributors to the AS W-20's early reputation. (Note: I've never flown
one. I ultimately chose a Zuni, for cost, location reasons.)
(Hoping to avoid seeming pedantic...)
One is "the (BG-12/Libelle) factor". The BG-12 developed an early
reputation for being a spinner/killer. The Libelle developed an early
reputation (at least in the U.S.) of being weak in the fuselage. Both ships
were leaders in becoming popular with a new group of U.S. pilots. Many
BG-12 owners had moved up from 1-26s, which had 1->1.5 psf lighter
wingloading and were reluctant to spin without considerable control abuse.
When the BG-12 did what we now consider to be "normal" for 5 psf gliders, it
bit some of these pilots. We see the same issue today transitioning
students from (say) 2-33/Twin Grob/other-"spin-reluctant"-gliders into
"typical single seaters". (Instructors feel free to jump in here...)
Later, the Libelle became the first "truly popular" glass ship in the U.S.
It also had considerably more landing energy to dissipate than the 1-26s,
Ka-8s and Ka-6s previous owners had been used to landing off-field.
Previously innocuous ground loops often weren't in Libelles. Gradually,
both the BG-12's and the Libelle's "problems" minimized as pilots
re-educated themselves.
As the above applies to the AS W-20, it was - disputably - the first "truly
popular" large deflection flapped ship to enter the U.S. fleet. Sure, there
were Schreders, C-70's, Zunis and PIK-20s around, but their numbers probably
didn't compare to Schleicher's design. For both popularity and "newness of
large deflection flaps" reasons, I'd expect there to be some statistical
learning pains associated with the design. (As in, remove the tears, and
you get statistics...) Incidentally, it seemed to me that the AS W-20
stall-spins might have been separable into "typical base-to-final" ones and
"in-flight" ones. (BTW, I'm not picking on the AS W-20 here. At least one
Puchacz, some 2-32s, even the 1-26, and undoubtedly almost every design
which has ever gotten higher than the landing pattern has had similar
"non-pattern stall/spins to the ground".)
Other possible (and speculative) contributors (to me, at least) include: a)
the AS W-20 being popular with contest pilots, who (sometimes) tend to fly
with thinner margins than weekend sport pilots; b) the 20's being among the
early ships with large water ballast capability (new learning curve, again);
and c) "the mystery factor". I included "c" because I couldn't rule it out,
though I put it well down on the list of likely contributors to inadvertent
stall spins, *IF* the pilot bothered to thoroughly explore his new 20's high
angle of attack "departure modes". (That's a BIG "if" in my view.)
My short form answer to "What causes a 20 to spin by accident any more than
any other glass glider?" is, "I don't really know." Similarly my short form
answer to, "Why did 20 get the reputation?" is, "Because it seemed to
warrant it."
Now before folks expend righteous indignation because I'm slamming the AS
W-20, I'm not; I've often wondered how my soaring experiences might have
differed had I bought a '20 rather than the Zuni (still my daily ship).
While there may be lousy - as in "bad" - glider designs floating around out
there, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any off the cuff. What I'm *really*
talking about is our perceptions. Consider.
For fun, go back and re-read Dick Johnson's (superb!) flight test reports.
Pick 3-5 from the late 1970s and then 3-5 from the mid to late 1990s. Pay
particular attention to his comments about pre-stall buffet. The only thing
that I can tell has changed is his perception of what's "normal" and
"acceptable". Twenty years ago, "normal" was "lots of pre-stall buffet".
The absence of it (a la AS W-20 and "typical" glass single-seaters)
occasioned an explicit cautionary comment from Dick. Today, that absence is
considered "normal" and "not adversely noteworthy". Consider also Tom
Knauff's "landing pattern stall recognition signals". Buffet is (correctly,
IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators, whereas prior to Tom's
approach it tended to be uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
*only* one. Perception matters and ideas have consequences... Gliders are
no exception.
<End of philosophical soabbox>
I'm with Nolaminar on this one, and would love to read additional responses
to his questions.
Regards,
Bob - Flying's real safe so long as you don't hit anything - Whelan
Andreas Maurer
>Can anyone seriously expand on the old 20 problem of spins? What causes a 20 to
>spin by accident any more than any other glass glider? Why did 20 get the
>reputation?
Using the flap setting 4 (thermal, slightly positive +8 degrees), the
20 tends to spin when flown very slow (below 75 kph), when full
aileron is applied or a strong turbulence hits the plane. Spin entry
with rear CG is quick, and recovery takes about 300 ft.
With a forward or mid CG and ALL OTHER flap settings the 20 is very
docile and forgiving.
In my opinion ist particular reputation is caused by the quick spin
entry - close to the ground a deadly trap.
On the other hand, other gliders do spin, too - the 20 requires only a
little bit more atttention.
In my opinion, overall the 20 has got the best flying characteristics
of all gliders.
Bye
Andreas
Robert Perry
< big sniperoo >
No flames, promise. But here is a picture of mine, but with George Moffat at
the controls, kicking everyone's A$$ !
http://home1.gte.net/soar/pix/2075.jpg
Just for fun
-Bob
David Leonard
in a 301b Libelle.
I think it was mostly just a difference in handling qualities, mostly
improvements in my view, from what pilots had become accustomed to
before transitioning. The classic indications of an imminent stall are
all there with the 20, but the magnitude changed markedly from the 70's
vintage gliders (Cirrus, Libelle, ASW15, etc.). Ticking them off:
Control sloppiness - My ASW20 was very controllable right up to where it
would depart. The change in control authority as you slowed down was not
as pronounced as in the Libelle. A big load of water only changed the
airspeed readings where things happened, not controllability. If you
didn't go explore the stall, the ship would feel so docile, you might
not properly respect it. Actually stalling it from a crossed up
configuration in thermalling flap (pos 4), even with mid cg, was
eye-opening (blue sky, then green-brown-green-brown....).
Aft stick - The light control forces and relatively short stick travel
make that one easy to miss in most high performance ships, particularly
with an aft cg.
Reduced wind noise - The 20 cockpit was sealed well so it was always
quiet, not much more so between sane thermalling speed and spin entry.
The Libelle I often thermalled canopy cracked open, particularly down
low to stay cool. Much larger sound cue.
Buffeting - Not much there, although not much different from the
Libelle.
Nose high - And for converts from Std Class gliders, getting used to the
same view out the window regardless of speed as flap settings change
helped mask one of the last cues.
Other: I've seen several recent transition pilots never use the landing
flaps, just using the thermal flap position for landing. My 20 was much
less docile in thermal flap than in landing flap (and much harder to
land well, too - I really loved those big flaps).
Why did the problem fade away after an early rash of accidents? Pilot
awareness? Training? Whatever the reason, the AS W-20 will always be one
of my all time favorite airplanes.
-Dave Leonard
LS-6b ZL
Daniel J. Dunkel
than
> any other glass glider?" is, "I don't really know." Similarly my short
form
> answer to, "Why did 20 get the reputation?" is, "Because it seemed to
> warrant it."
Is the "conventional wisdom" that the ASW-27 is better behaved than the 20?
How about the Ventus 2 vs the ASW-20--that is, relative to spin
characteristics?
Andreas Maurer
<bert.w...@epfl.ch> wrote:
>So do I (in flat countries, in the Alps I often thermal in 10.000 ft MSL but
>300 ft AGL) , so did they. Back in '86 or '85 in Germany, there were three
>pilots killed in 20C's during winch launch incidents, and one pilot of our
>club did very much the same but with more luck. He had aborted the launch
>because of lack of speed in about 300 ft, put the glider into normal pitch
>and started to turn _without_ checking the ASI. He spun a full turn and
>recovered in just about the height to touch down straight ahead. He too had
>been in a configuration of the CG in the last 10%. I will accept anybodies
>claim that this procedure is one of the best ways to get killed by any
>glider.
Talking about winch launch accidents and ASW-20's:
I once saw a very similar accident. Due to lack of speed the pilot
released the winch rope at about 60 ft, already very slow, flap
setting 3 (neutral). Then he wanted to set his flaps to 4, but
overshoot and set them to 4.5 (the "normal" landing setting, about 35
degrees). He corrected to 4 and extended the speedbrakes. Time from
release to this point about three seconds. Just as he opened the
airbrakes (he closed them immediately) the 20 entered a spin and
impacted after the quarter of a turn. Left wing broken, forward
fuselage destroyed, rear fuselage destroyed, the pilot was not hurt.
One could see clearly how the stall started immediately when he
extended the airbrakes at low speed without lowering the nose.
>Anyhow, that was the very point when we decided not to let our student
>pilots fly the 20 anymore but to restrict them to our Discus (just a kick
>for our US community on club fleet policy, couldn't help ... :-)
Well, our pilots needed 100 total hours to fly our 20. And a 300 km XC
(later reduced to 200 km).
Bye
Andreas
Student
training for awhile as a result. Now if I can just convince the
lender....
Fly High
Martin
> Is the "conventional wisdom" that the ASW-27 is better behaved than the
20?
>
the landingconfiguration is a piece of cake. I have no exprience with the
20, so I cannot compare these ships.
Martin
Gliderscum
>Knauff's "landing pattern stall recognition signals". Buffet is (correctly,
>IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators, whereas prior to Tom's
>approach it tended to be uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
>*only* one.
Having just bought an ASW-20, I am interested in Tom Knauff's stall recognition
signals, what are they, or where are they listed?
I have been taking training flights with an instructor in a Janus in
preperation for flying my 20, and feel truly lucky to have this thread going
concurrently with my training.
Mark Navarre
Lakewood, CA
-
Robert Whelan
Gliderscum wrote in message
<19990820095938...@ng-cj1.aol.com>...
>> Consider also Tom
>>Knauff's "landing pattern stall recognition signals". Buffet is
(correctly,
>>IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators, whereas prior to Tom's
>>approach it tended to be uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
>>*only* one.
>
recognition
>signals, what are they, or where are they listed?
>I have been taking training flights with an instructor in a Janus in
>preperation for flying my 20, and feel truly lucky to have this thread
going
>concurrently with my training.
>
>Mark Navarre
>Lakewood, CA
The >> excerpt is mine. Knauff gave a talk a few years ago at our club's
monthly meeting during which he discussed pattern stalls, among other
topics. The talk was my introduction to "his" incipient-pattern-stall
warning signals. I *imagine* he discusses these things in greater detail in
one or more of his well-known training books, routinely advertised in
"Soaring" mag. Working from memory (and - natcherly - personal experience
with slow flight), here's my best recollection of "Knauff's 6 signals": 1)
stick farther aft than normal; 2) speed decaying; 3) nose higher than
normal; 4) noise decreasing; 5) control movements exaggerated for a given
response; 6) buffet.
Regards,
Bob Whelan
Eric Greenwell
says...
= Is the "conventional wisdom" that the ASW-27 is better behaved than the 20?
Absolutely. All the manufacturers have become more knowledgeable about
glider design than they were in the 70's when the 20 was designed, so
all the new models have better flying qualities, stronger cockpits,
higher performance, lighter weight, and (sigh) higher cost than their
previous models.
= How about the Ventus 2 vs the ASW-20--that is, relative to spin
= characteristics?
I'm curious about the why you want to compare the newest design from
Schmepp-Hirth with a much older design from Schleicher? Are you
considering buying one of these gliders, or perhaps your club has these
available for you to fly? There are other differences that may be of
equal or greater importance, as would your ability and experience.
Eric Greenwell
rfwh...@greeleynet.com says...
= My short form answer to "What causes a 20 to spin by accident any more than
= any other glass glider?" is, "I don't really know." Similarly my short form
= answer to, "Why did 20 get the reputation?" is, "Because it seemed to
= warrant it."
The USA experienced a rash of 20 spin accidents in the late 70's; after
that, it didn't seem to be any more likely to cause problems than other
gliders. At that time, the rest of the world did not seem to experience
these problems.
When I was a director for the Soaring Society of America for six years
in the '80s, and on the Safety Board, we did not see the ASW 20 involved
in a disproportionate number of accidents, nor did the insurance
companies feel it was any worse than the other high performance gliders.
The ASW 20 was, and still is, one of the most popular gliders, with over
1000 built. Would this happen if it had a "reputation" for spinning
badly? My observation is this "reputation" exists only among people not
really familiar with the glider, or do not take into account the large
numbers that were built, or are unaware of the statistics for other
gliders.
Flying the 20:
If you fly any high performance glider with the CG within 10%-15% of the
aft limit, you are asking for trouble. According to Gerhard Waibel, the
designer, this is not even the optimum position for performance. If you
do not know the proper spin recovery for a flapped glider like the ASW
20, (going to negative flap in addition to the standard recovery
actions), you are also in trouble.
Other safety-related aspects:
The ASW 20 has a high-deflection landing flap position (60 degrees on
the early models, 40 degrees on the B & C) which allow a steep, slow
approach, and a short landing roll. When the flaps are in this positive-
deflection landing position, the ailerons go up to a negative
("washout") position, making a spin far less likely than in the normal
flying positions.
Because it also has effective spoilers, the approach can be easily
adjusted, and avoids some of the difficulties of a "flaps-only" glider.
All models have the larger 500-5 tire with a larger brake, rather than
the 400-4 tire common back then. The B & C models have a Cleveland
hydraulic disk brake instead of the less-effective drum brake the other
manufacturers used. The B & C models also have a sprung gear, giving
more shock absorption in a hard landing or on rough fields, and
protecting the pilot's back better than a rigid gear.
Chris Robinson
alph...@t-online.de (Andreas Maurer) wrote:
> On 19 Aug 1999 00:36:58 GMT, nola...@aol.com (Nolaminar) wrote:
>
causes a 20 to
> >spin by accident any more than any other glass glider? Why did 20 get
the
> >reputation?
>
> Using the flap setting 4 (thermal, slightly positive +8 degrees), the
> 20 tends to spin when flown very slow (below 75 kph), when full
> aileron is applied or a strong turbulence hits the plane. Spin entry
> with rear CG is quick, and recovery takes about 300 ft.
>
> With a forward or mid CG and ALL OTHER flap settings the 20 is very
> docile and forgiving.
>
> In my opinion ist particular reputation is caused by the quick spin
> entry - close to the ground a deadly trap.
> On the other hand, other gliders do spin, too - the 20 requires only a
> little bit more atttention.
>
> In my opinion, overall the 20 has got the best flying characteristics
> of all gliders.
>
> Bye
> Andreas
>
I think that Andreas has identified the key point in reputation of
the 20; the flap selection of the 20. With landing flap selected the
ailerons go negative; in position 4 they are positive.
A friend loaned me her 20 and her partner briefed me on using landing
flap. No trouble on both flights, but I did try "landing" at 2,000ft in
position 4 and flick rolled into a spin by flying too slowly.
Another friend (I have more than one) always uses +5deg flap when
landing his DG500/20 Winglet glider; he never uses landing flap because
the roll control is F**&^*% awful. At +5 deg it lands just fine.
The 20 has a neat trick, at high flap angles the ailerons go up reducing
the tendency to tip stall and resulting in a very easy to handle glider.
With landing flap selected it is possible to land in very short fields
with a good safety margin. I suggest that in the early days of the 20
pilots were surprised by the effectiveness of the landing flaps and by
erring on the side of safety they were inadvertently putting themselves
in a more dangerous situation by using position 4 (thermal flap) than
using landing flap.
I wish DG would use this trick, the DG500 would be a dream with this
mod.
The ASH25 only becomes landable with this trick.
I also fly an Oly 460 and a Jantar without flaps, both have vices, but I
dearly love them all; the moral is know your ship.
Chris
--
Good Soaring
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Robert Perry
Thats the way I did it too, I had about 50 hour in Janus before the -20.
The -20 is much easier to fly. Lighter control feel especially ailerons.
-Bob
Gliderscum wrote:
> > Consider also Tom
> >Knauff's "landing pattern stall recognition signals". Buffet is (correctly,
> >IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators, whereas prior to Tom's
> >approach it tended to be uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
> >*only* one.
>
> Having just bought an ASW-20, I am interested in Tom Knauff's stall recognition
> signals, what are they, or where are they listed?
> I have been taking training flights with an instructor in a Janus in
> preperation for flying my 20, and feel truly lucky to have this thread going
> concurrently with my training.
>
> Mark Navarre
> Lakewood, CA
>
> -
--
Thanks-
___ Bob Perry
|
--------O-------- MS 7L-40
425-865-6133
Boeing internal http://www.rt.cs.boeing.com/CS/ads/perryr/
Caracole
indicators of an impending stall. The buffet is only one of
the actual indications of a stall. It is true that In many docile
gliders during mellow stall entry, it is commonly the first real
indication of a stall. Hopefully a pilot would recognize and
react to at least one of the impending stall indicators and not
need to wait for actual stall indication. Such as buffet,
nose drop, wing drop, high rate of sink, rapid decay of control
authority, or stick against the stop with no pitch change.
Recognition is the key to stall and spin prevention.
M Eiler
Snips
>>Knauff's "landing pattern stall recognition signals". Buffet is
>>(correctly, IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators,
>> whereas prior to Tom's approach it tended to be
>>uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
>>*only* one.
>here's my best recollection of "Knauff's 6 signals":
>1) stick farther aft than normal;
>2) speed decaying;
>3) nose higher than normal;
>4) noise decreasing;
>5) control movements exaggerated for a given response;
>6) buffet.
>Regards >Bob Whelan
rfw...@my-deja.com
"Caracole" <cara...@ccis.com> wrote:
> Of the six indicators listed. Aren't the first five actually
> indicators of an impending stall. The buffet is only one of
> the actual indications of a stall. It is true that In many docile
> gliders during mellow stall entry, it is commonly the first real
> indication of a stall. Hopefully a pilot would recognize and
> react to at least one of the impending stall indicators and not
> need to wait for actual stall indication. Such as buffet,
> nose drop, wing drop, high rate of sink, rapid decay of control
> authority, or stick against the stop with no pitch change.
> Recognition is the key to stall and spin prevention.
> M Eiler
>
> Snips
> >>(correctly, IMHO) way down there on the list of indicators,
> >> whereas prior to Tom's approach it tended to be
> >>uppermost that people focused on. Sometimes, the
> >>*only* one.
> >1) stick farther aft than normal;
> >2) speed decaying;
> >3) nose higher than normal;
> >4) noise decreasing;
> >5) control movements exaggerated for a given response;
> >6) buffet.
> >Regards >Bob Whelan
>
>
warning signals and post-separation/stall continuing feedback from the
ship. "Ditto," with respect to recognition being the key to
prevention. Allowing for time and my reflective description of what
Knauff actually *said* possibly garbling what he was *trying* to
convey, I chose to interpret what I thought I heard, as: one
instructor's view of why recognition/prevention beats "instantaneous
proper reaction" any day when it comes to pattern stalls! If
presentations as his, and discussions as this, get people thinking
about their own reactions and perceptions of pattern stalls, I believe
that's a good thing. It can be a REALLY good thing if - by such
ponderation - a person's understanding improves...and a GREAT thing if
their flying does too!
Regards,
Bob Whelan
culpusa...@my-deja.com
fo1.aol.com>,
nola...@aol.com (Nolaminar) wrote:
> Can anyone seriously expand on the old 20
problem of spins? What causes a 20 to
spin by accident any more than any other glass
glider? Why did ASW20 get the reputation? >
Do you think that there is an unusual propensity
to spin in these ships? Could it be that some of
the spins resulting in accidents had the ships
heavily aft cg weighted and recovery just couldnt
be done...You know how much some folks tail
weight their gliders thinking it will give them
extra performance especially in the climb. Well
that's also where they may be clawing a little
extra hard to climb and slow it down and stalling
with extra tail weight they just dont get it
flying again soon enough. Could that be it? Or
do you think it's an airfoil related problem?
Ask Karl. He'd know.
The ASW19 has some of the same record doesnt it?
Know of some of those with spins accidents too.
Would love to have an ASW 20 of any model. Still
great ships, right?
Keeping the cg, within specified limits as per
handbook, balanced reasonably maybe is best.
Keep it up!
Jim Culp USA
cul...@hotmail.com
Gliderscum
>to spin in these ships? Could it be that some of
>the spins resulting in accidents had the ships
>heavily aft cg weighted and recovery just couldnt
>be done
With this whole discussion fresh in my mind, AND the invaluable benefit of dual
instruction by Cindy and Marty at Caracole Soaring, I had my first flight in my
ASW20 today at Cal City. Took a high tow and spent the first portion of the
flight doing a series of stalls in different configurations.
I was surprised at the extreme nose high attitude necessary to get this glider
to stall, especially at +9 degrees flap while thermalling. I had to hold the
stick full back
for a full circle, finally the inside wing dropped at about 35 kts indicated.
All the impending stall signs were there well in advance, but when the wing
finally dropped, it was rather sudden. Rotation stopped in less than 1/2 turn
with opposite rudder and relaxed back pressure. The CG on my ship is 80-90% to
the aft end of the range.
Wing dropping was less sudden with negative flap, or with spoilers. I did not
try stalls with landing flaps, that can wait for a future flight.
IN MY OPINION, my ASW20 provides AMPLE warning of impending stall, and I am not
worried about an inadvertent spin.
Lacking proper training and experienced advice, I am quite sure I would think
otherwise.
Mark
Lakewood, Ca
-
Eric Greenwell
the cited author.]
In article <19990822235311...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
glide...@aol.com says...
= All the impending stall signs were there well in advance, but when the wing
= finally dropped, it was rather sudden. Rotation stopped in less than 1/2 turn
= with opposite rudder and relaxed back pressure. The CG on my ship is 80-90% to
= the aft end of the range.
= Wing dropping was less sudden with negative flap, or with spoilers. I did not
= try stalls with landing flaps, that can wait for a future flight.
= IN MY OPINION, my ASW20 provides AMPLE warning of impending stall, and I am not
= worried about an inadvertent spin.
= Lacking proper training and experienced advice, I am quite sure I would think
= otherwise.
Be sure to read the manual about the use of negative flap when
recovering from a spin, and practice using it enough to remember it.
Also, please consider keeping the CG ahead of the 80% point - as I
remember what Waibel told me, not only is it safer and easier to fly,
but the CG for optimum performance (especially in strong conditions) is
forward of the 80% point.
Mike Koerner
The second-hand information I recall from his crash is consistent with
the discussion later in this thread of a "Flick Roll": The sailplane
contacted the ground inverted, at a shallow nose down angle. There were
no witnesses.
In his memory the site of his crash, a small dry lake 21 miles
east-northeast of Cal City, was subsequently referred to as "Swan Dry
Lake".
Mike Koerner