Perlan 2: The glider that will slip the surly bonds of Earth – and touch the edge of space Euro airliner firm Airbus is sponsoring a glider capable of soaring to greater altitudes than the famous SR-71 Blackbird spy aircraft. The Perlan 2 project aims to get a conventional sailplane up to altitudes of 90,000 feet, surpassing the SR-71's declared service ceiling of 85,000ft. Sponsored by Airbus, the Perlan 2 glider …
if it could be used to reduce the cost of sending 'stuff' into orbit.
I suppose the limiting factor is that for a greater payload you need bigger and bigger wings and presumably at some point there just isn't enough air mass at those altitudes moving fast enough to generate the necessary lift. But then you could, perhaps, use some hybrid large-wing, low-power engine for the 'last mile'. But then maybe the extra complexity negates the initial advantages.
But then it also seasonal so perhaps overall just not worth the effort. Anyone 'know'?
Anything that you carry up there is likely to be quite heavy - it will need an engine/fuel to allow it to continue its journey. Given that the glider itself is so light, I would expect that you would be increasing the overall package's mass by an order of magnitude by adding a launchable thing to it.
The payload of this glider is two people and life support for these in addition to instruments for sampling air. So my guess is 300-400 kg. That could be enough to carry a small rocket that could reach space, but probably not enough to get anything into orbit. Using a balloon to carry a rocket to the edge of the atmosphere seems more practical.
A long cable with clever hooks at each end and a central mass could be used to pick up such a glider, and by carefully choosing when to let go route it onward. Engines still required, but less mass.
For a fictional treatment see Neal Stephenson's Seveneves.
>What if you go straight up, as slowly as you like, to geostationary orbit?
Because when you get there, the sideways velocity you inherited from the surface of the earth would be 1600kmh if you had started on the equator. The sideways velocity required to stay there is 11000kmh which - a delta-v of ~10000kmh requires a huge amount of energy to reach.
Using your proposal, when you turn your engines off when you get there, the result will be that you will fall back down again and crash somewhere else on earth as it has rotated underneath you.
@Ben 44
You're not very good at thought experiments... This should have been intuitively obvious.
Two bowling balls. Put the 1st into geostationary orbit in the usual manner (involving high speed). Carry the 2nd straight up to the exact same geostationary orbital slot by means of a really tall ladder; reach out and place the 2nd bowling ball right beside the 1st. Give the 1st bowling ball a pat (just to make sure it's real) while you're at the top of the ladder. Leave them there. Two bowling balls, both in precisely the exact same state.
Ben wrote "...when you turn your engines off when you get there, the result will be that you will fall back down..."
Einstein would ask, how does God know which bowling ball is which? How does He determine which one to bring crashing down?
Are bowling balls like holistic water? Do they have memory?
Think about it. Take as much time as you need.
Hopefully, by means of this trivial thought experiment, you'll realize that your post was completely and utterly wrong.
Getting into orbit isn't just about getting high, erm, I mean reaching a high altitude. You also need to be travelling sideways fast enough that you fall towards the Earth at the same speed it's falling away underneath you.
Orbital speed at about 200km (below about 150km there's too much atmosphere) is about 7000m/s, so to get into orbit from Perlan 2 you'd have to raise your altitude from ~30km up to ~170km and your speed from ~180m/s to ~6500m/s.
For a 1kg satellite you're going to need something like an extra 20 mega joules of energy to get into a very low orbit. Looking at some energy densities, you might be able to get that out of a rocket weighing 5-10kg, which I guess isn't out of the realm of possibility (but I'd check with an actual rocket scientist rather than going with my back-of-the-envelope guesses).
Not entirely true - can't remember the figure, but standing still on the earth you already have a certain rotational speed, and if you go high enough, that _will_ be enough to stay in orbit. Much higher than normal orbits, but then we all know that standard orbits are getting very crowded these days.
I believe you are referring to geostationary orbit. The altitude for this is VERY high.
Geostationary orbit is at 255614285.7143 Linguine, or 35786 KM for our less enlightened readers.
22235.8867 Miles for our bass ackwards American friends.
All thanks and credit/blame belong with The Reg online standards converter.
" if you go high enough, that _will_ be enough to stay in orbit"
Well, much higher is one way to put it, but basically yes. According to the first online orbital calculator I could find, approximately two million kilometers up the orbital speed happens to be almost exactly the 1600 km/h we have standing on the equator. That of course means pretending the Sun or the Moon have nothing to say about the issue (I'm sure they both do), but, basically, two million kilometers straight up you can apparently indeed stay up indefinitely...
The original post was about launching with a rocket, not a space elevator/ladder. With a rocket your initial orbital velocity is the surface velocity of the earth at the launch point. You then have to increase that orbital velocity to reach stable LEO or GEO. Launching straight up without increasing orbital velocity to GEO does NOT result in a stable orbit. The ladder in your thought experiment does this increasing by robbing angular momentum from the earth and transferring that through the ladder to increase the velocity of the bowling ball. Launching straight up without increasing velocity along the orbit only results in a stable orbit some 2million km from earth where the stable orbit velocity matches initial launch surface velocity.
Agreed wrote "Launching straight up without increasing velocity along the orbit only results in a stable orbit some 2million km from earth where the stable orbit velocity matches initial launch surface velocity."
Wrong.
You're very confused about the altitude of geostationary orbit.
They're not at "2million km".
You also missed the key point about 'bowling balls' not having memory.
This whole thing was a counter example rebuttal to the partially true claim that "orbit is sideways speed". Typically true, but not necessarily true.
Perhaps you could read up on space elevator theory to convince yourself that they're difficult enough without replacing the geostationary height number with 'two million'.
Wrong.
He's not.
You're very confused about the altitude of geostationary orbit.
You're very confused about orbital velocity.
You also missed the key point about 'bowling balls' not having memory.
You missed the key point about the second ball being accelerated sideways during its passage up the ladder. You know the angular velocity of a geostationary object - that's the bit that stays the same for the ball you're carrying up the ladder. But the velocity of any object of constant orbital velocity will necessarily increase as the radius of the orbit increases. This is basic geometry...
This whole thing was a counter example rebuttal
It really wasn't...
Perhaps you could read up on space elevator theory
Perhaps you should consider what happens when the velocity of the top of the elevator is the same as the velocity of the bottom, despite having a much larger path to traverse each rotation.
Vic.
It's as if none of you have ever heard of the Space Elevator concept, a.k.a. a tall ladder.
Relative to the Earth (why do I even need to type that?), the bowling ball on the ground isn't moving. The one in geostationary orbit isn't either. Both are zero mph relative to the Earth's surface,and the Earth itself.
The bowling ball halfway up the ladder, same thing. Zero mph relative to the Earth. Move up the ladder as slowly as you like. Orbit will be achieved. And high speed never happened.
This entire subthread was in response to: "Space is up, Orbit is sideways." Yes. But...
The counterexample being the Space Elevator concept.
Orbit can be achieved, in theory, without any high speed ever happening. Fact. Obviously.
Downvotes are just an admission of not comprehending the above. Since it's quite trivial, it indicates a gap in basic understanding on your part, or a monumental communications failure between us.
Relative to the Earth (why do I even need to type that?)
Because it's the irrelevance that makes you think you have a point. you don't. Try thinking relative to something else - e.g. the sun. You will see that *all* these objects are moving.
Both are zero mph relative to the Earth's surface,and the Earth itself.
Had you thought about taking your theory to any of the major space agencies? Because they all expend an awful lot of energy making spacecraft go sideways, and according to you, that's unnecessary. You have just revolutionised orbital mechanics. Or maybe you're just wrong. Hmmm.... let me think about that one.
NASA's opinion on the subject reckons that geostationary orbit requires a speed of 11,100 KM.hour. Perhaps you'd like to tell us all why they're wrong.
Since it's quite trivial, it indicates a gap in basic understanding on your part, or a monumental communications failure between us.
It's very simple to grasp, and I cannot help but be astounded at your failure so to do. But your evaluation of the possible causes omits one very important one: that you're utterly and completely wrong. And that being the correct assessment, you're not going to get any further on this until you go and read some factual material, rather than just making it up as you go along. You assertion that a geostationary object is not travelling sideways at great velocity is as wrong as asserting that a car doing 70mph is stationary, because there's another car alongside also doing 70mph; you appear to have forgotten that the Earth is spinning.
Vic.
So how does God tell the difference between the bowling ball that reached geostationary orbit in the traditional high speed manner, and the other bowling ball that was slowly carried straight up and gently placed into geostationary orbit, just beside the first? Two bowling balls in precisely the same state. One got there by "Orbit is (sideways) speed". The other got there by means of a really tall ladder (a.k.a space elevator). Orbit achieved without moving quickly at any point. Energy installed by slow lifting, not speed.
Any thinking person can understand the above.
The point we are all trying to make is that the ladder is NOT just increasing altitude it is increasing the velocity of the second bowling ball to match that of the first. The end result of your thought experiment is indeed 2 bowling balls in the same energy state (i.e orbit). You are confused as to the process to GET there. Lets take a closer look at the space elevator example you give. Indeed both ends are at the same angular velocity relative to the earths Center of Gravity. They are however not at the same velocity along the orbital path. To understand why lets look at another object, the rotor blades on a helicopter. The blades are perfectly straight and (apart from a lag hinge on some helicopters for the pedants out there) remain perfectly straight when spinning around the shaft. The blades attach to the hub with a short stub some distance R from the main shaft before the airfoil profile starts. Lets call this the root of the blade. The blade has a length L to the tip of the blade. As the rotor blade spins the root describes a circle with radius R. And a circumference of 2*Pi*R. The tip makes a circle with a radius of R+L and a length of 2*Pi*(R+L). Because the tip covers the same full revolution as the root to keep the blade at the same angular velocity and the blade straight that means each revolution the tip of the blade covers 2*Pi*L more distance relative to the root. Because the tip makes the revolution in the same time as the root is means it covers more distance in the same time and thus HAS to move faster. Now lets imagine R is equal to the earths radius and L is equal to GEO altitude. Now we are looking at the idealalised version of a space elevator. The same basic equations still apply and so the space end of the space elevator has to have a higher orbital velocity relative to the earths CoG than the earth attached end.
The same basic equations still apply and so the space end of the space elevator has to have a higher orbital velocity relative to the earths CoG than the earth attached end.
Watch yourself - arguing against our very own Orbital Mechanics Genius will attract downvotes for you like it did for me...
Vic.
Agreed wrote "...the ladder... ...is increasing the velocity of the second bowling ball..."
This is the root of the argument.Please review the meaning of the word "geostationary" and get back to me. If we use the Earth's surface as our reference, which is not at all uncommon in human affairs, then the bowling ball on the ladder never goes fast (relative to the Earth). But it gets to orbit.
Which was my point.
To reinforce the point, either bowling ball can come back down to the Earth's surface without any heat shield. Just come back down on the ladder, slowly as you wish.
FWIW, I do understand your points. It's just that my point is still perfectly valid.
Please review the meaning of the word "geostationary" and get back to me.
Everyone except you knows the meaning of the word "geostationary". For your edification, I shall give you a simple definition: it means the orbiting object has the same angular velocity as the Earth. This only means it is moving at the same speed if either the distance above the Earth is zero (i.e. it is on the ground) or of the angular velocity is zero (i.e. the Earth is not spinning). Neither of these situations relates in any way to this situation.
So here - I wasn't going to do this, but you appear to need a worked example. Here are my initial data:-
Your super-ladder sits with its base on the equator, and (initially) points directly upwards).
The circumference of the Earth is given by 2*pi*r = 40,000 km, near enough. It makes one full rotation per day, meaning its speed is 40,000 km/day or nearly 1700km/h. This is the speed at the bottom of your ladder.
Now let's look at the top of your ladder. The distance from the centre of rotation (the core of the Earth) is 35,786 + 6378 = 42184km. The distance the top travels in one complete rotation is given by 2*pi*r = 265,000km approx.
Now if your assertion about the speed being the same at the top as at the bottom, then the distance travelled in a day would be the same at the top as at the bottom. Thus the top of your ladder would travel a mere 40,000km a day - which is rather less than a sixth of the distance it needs to travel to make a complete rotation. It falls over very quickly; it is *not* geostationary.
Conversely, if it were geostationary, it would travel the entire 265,000 km in a day. This would leave the top of the ladder above the bottom, as required - but the speed at the top is now our 11,000 km/h as declared in the NASA figures, and is very much not the same as the speed at the bottom, as you have asserted.
So tell us - which of these do you prefer? That your "geostationary" ladder is no such thing, or that your assertion is plain wrong? Either makes you look decidedly foolish.
Your position is untenable. You have chosen to ignore the fact that NASA's factsheet declares you to be completely wrong, I notice. Now I've had to hand-hold you through basic arithmetic to prove that your theory cannot hold water. Please stop bullshitting and read up on the geometry of circles - it's really very easy and would mean you don't make such monumental cock-ups in future.
FWIW, I do understand your points. It's just that my point is still perfectly valid.
No, it isn't. Your point is wrong. Your continued assertion that it has any value demonstrated that you have no understanding whatsoever of the arguments presented here. Your continued avoidance of the discrepancy between your claim and the data offered by an agency that has put satellites into orbit speaks volumes.
Vic.
So how does God tell the difference between the bowling ball that reached geostationary orbit in the traditional high speed manner, and the other bowling ball that was slowly carried straight up and gently placed into geostationary orbit, just beside the first?
There is no need to tell any difference between the two, since they have both been accelerated to the same velocity.
Two bowling balls in precisely the same state
Yes - precisely the same state. Both have been accelerated to orbital velocity. They are both going sideways at quite a lick.
Orbit achieved without moving quickly at any point. Energy installed by slow lifting, not speed.
No. Completely, horrifically, abjectly incorrect.
Can you really not cite the formula for the circumference of a circle? That's the length of the orbital path. If the ball were doing the same speed as the ground beneath it, it would take far more time to complete that orbit than would the ground beneath - meaning it would not be geosynchronous, and the top of your ladder would be falling behind. This means the ladder falls over, along with your theory.
If, however, both the top and bottom of your ladder have the same angular velocity - which is a requirement for it to be upright, then they cannot have the same speed for any length of ladder >0. The top of your ladder is going faster than the bottom, or else it falls over. Similarly, a ball lifted up the ladder will be accelerated by that ladder too match the speed of each bit of the ladder during the ascent.
This is basic geometry. It amazes me that you continue to argue something which, as I have pointed out, NASA tells you is wrong. Now it's always possible that you are right and both NASA and I are wrong - so let's see some evidence. How many satellites have you put into stable otbit, about his planet or any other?
Any thinking person can understand the above.
Yes. It troubles me that you do not.
Vic.
Vic "Try thinking relative to something else - e.g. the Sun."
Reductio ad absurdum follows: Why the Sun? Why not the Moon? The Earth's Moon is a lot closer, and packs a greater gravitation punch on Earth (tides). Let's choose the Moon instead. Using that as your randomly chosen reference gives everything a 3700 kmh speed boost. Yay!
Thought experiment follows: Somebody stole the Sun. The Earth was left isolated. Besides being cold and dark, what about orbital mechanics changes?
Thinking - you're doing it wrong.
Why the Sun? Why not the Moon?
Because the Sun can be considered a fairly stable reference point for the system - a datum line between Earth and Sun moves about 1 per day. You can do it with the Moon if you prefer, but there's a whole lot more mathematics in that, and you seem to be having difficulty with basic multiplication at the moment.
Thinking - you're doing it wrong.
One of us is - and you're yet to explain why your theory disagrees with NASA's. You might want to start there first.
Vic.
Vic offered that geostationary orbit requires "11,100 kmh".
NASA offered that geostationary orbit requires "11,100 kmh". You say they're wrong. Can you not see why this is a poor starting position?
Or use a 'really tall ladder' (space elevator), which is not *yet* practical. But orbital mechanics theory says is possible.
No it doesn't! You're mistaking angular velocity for orbital velocity. There is a radius multiplication you've missed out, which is why you're getting the wrong answer time after time after time.
If you were to read up on this, rather than simply reposting your ignorance, you might actually learn something.
Vic.
Vic offered "...geostationary orbit requires 11,100 kmh."
Clue 1 = Geo
Clue 2 = stationary
Geostationary requires 35,786 km. How you get there is up to you.
There's a GPS stuck to bowling ball. It shows zero kmh on the ground, not 1040 kmh as your view would indicate.
As it slowly goes up the ladder, the GPS Speed is stuck on zero kmh. But the Altitude is increasing.
Eventually it reaches geostationary orbit and it never went above zero kmh.
FWIW, I understand your points, but my point remains perfectly valid.
How fast is the base of my ladder moving? It's set in concrete. 1040 kmh? Or zero kmh?
Your position and Vic's both depend on the base of my ladder, set in a concrete foundation, "moving" at 1040 kmh.
The seeming discrepancy between our statements just comes down to that. It's not the slightest bit complicated.
Which is perhaps why Vic has gone silent, and you actually have no rebuttal.
THERE IS NO POINT IN POSTING A REBUTTAL! I have plenty but I refuse to waste my time on someone who refuses to even THINK for a second! You REALLY can't understand why we say the foundation is moving (relative to a fixed reference frame located around the earths center) at 1040 km/h? You REALLY can't understand why the top of your hypothetical ladder HAS to be moving relative to that same reference frame FASTER than the foundation? You REALLY insist on rotating the entire reference frame along with the ladder around the reference frame? Because we can STILL make the same calculations, showing the same damn thing, it's just going to involve a lot of very complicated mathematics that is frankly entirely pointless because the same sums in a fixed reference frame barely cover an A5 sheet of paper.
Again, I'm done. Good luck trying to troll Vic. I'm pretty sure he is done.
Fuck, I just wrote another post in reply....
Yep. If the top of the geostationary ladder is "moving" at 11,100 kmh, then the base (which is set in concrete) is therefore "moving" at 1040 kmh. That's exactly what you're saying.
Quite a few Earthlings use WGS-84 as their "reference frame". Which what I was using.
Your points are trivial. Don't think for one second that I don't understand them.
My point is also perfectly valid. An item can achieve orbit without ever moving quickly, relative to the WGS-84 (essentially the Earth's surface) reference frame.
Anyone left here should by now see my point.
As someone much cleverer than me once said: the problem with getting into orbit is not getting high enough it's going sideways fast enough. In low earth orbit your talking about going at around 7km/s (16,000mph) that takes a lot of fuel which, necessarily, weighs a lot. This is the same reason we don't try to launch things from balloons which have already taken people over 41,000m (135k feet).
This post has been deleted by its author
Yes: I know that aviators traditionally measure altitude in feet, but that means nothing to me, especially when we are always told that the edge of space starts at 100 km (the Kármán line). The other thing that is of interest is how much air pressure is left at that height.
So:
90,000 feet is 27.4 km or 17 miles, where the air pressure is 2 kPa which is 2% of what it is at sea level.
By way of comparison: in 2012 Felix Baumgartner jumped from his balloon at 39 km (24 miles, 128,000 ft).
> Yes: I know that aviators traditionally measure altitude in feet...
"Interesting" factoid: While general (and commercial) aviation (well, the engine* carrying ones) in Germany measures height in feet, distance in nautical miles and speed in knots, glider pilots use meters, kilometers and kilometers per hour. They also use meters / second as climb rates in contrast to the feet / minute used elsewhere... you get to be quite quick in converting between the two systems.
(icon 'cause it is sort of unnecessary and confusing and...)
* we call them FNCs, fuel to noise converters
'glider pilots use meters, kilometers and kilometers per hour.'
Glider pilots, refusing to integrate with the rest of aviation and being a general nuisance since 1903. It'd be nice if the ones round here used the radio to let you know their radar invisible, same colour as the cloud, hazards to aviation were operating just outside your airfield boundary but no apparently that's too much trouble.
There are sound engineering reasons for gliders being (mostly) white. Most modern gliders are made of glass fibre or composites, and white is the most reflective colour that they can be - any other colour absorbs wavelengths which might well damage the aircraft. Metal gliders, like the Blanik or Pilatus B4, or wood and fabric gliders, like the Ka6, can be any colour you like.
Wood and composite gliders aren’t very reflective to RADAR - and even the metal ones tend to have a small cross section from most angles.
And as for radio - what good is that? We do have it, and we use it when necessary (check us out - broadcasting to you on 130.1) - but it doesn’t give you anything other than a voice. You won’t get range, altitude, direction or anything else from a radio.
On the other hand, the best pilots (whether commercial, military or private) I know have all been glider pilots at some point. The biggest blowhards pontificating on GA haven’t even sat in a sailplane.
Oh, and FTR, in the UK glider pilots use feet and knots - same as every other pilot.
My personal record, in wave, was 9.5k ft, in a blue L13 Blanik (which, sadly, was wrapped around a tree in a storm in 1990. Luckily, no one was in it at the time, or hurt - but a sad end to absolutely my favourite glider ever, and the one that I solo’d in)
There are sound safety reasons for not being the same colour as the sky too.
'And as for radio - what good is that?'
For a novel experience you could try contacting the nearest airfield and saying 'Hi this is me, I'm here at X,000 feet' then they could tell aircraft operating in the vicinity to be on the look out or just to keep clear.
'You won’t get range, altitude, direction or anything else from a radio.'
Actually you will get direction.
Having sat at an Airprox board recently where a glider flew past an active airfield just outside its ATZ while having a CAT B with some inbound traffic I was delighted to find it was actually fitted with a transponder. Imagine my surprise to find the pilot had decided to turn it off as he made his closest approach to the airfield.
Yes many of the best fixed and rotary pilots in hand/eye terms started as glider pilots (I may or may not be included in that group) but the average glider pilot seems to think airmanship applies to other people.
Since this thread is turning into bashing of glider pilots for bad comms- and safety-skills, care should be taken to note motor pilots blundering into the airspace around glider fields where aero-tows and winch-launches take place while performing neither visual scans nor radio communication. https://youtu.be/JXQKaxp6Rlk (the label is misleading)
On a personal note, I also know of a (self launching) glider pilot who had to exit the runway of an uncontrolled field at speed because a motor pilot had desided to take off in the other direction without switching on his radio (The field had a bump in the middle, making end-to end visibility impossible). The sustained damage was substantial, including landing gear ripped backwards out of the fuselage when the wheel got stuck in a groundhog hole.
Modern gliders come equipped with radio and mode-s transponders. Many are being equipped with ADSB and TCAS. It must be noted that, out of concern with the low speed of implementation of ADSB and TCAS, gliderpilots developed and implemented on a large scale their own colission avoidance system, FLARM, years ago.
Back to you Skippy.
'Modern gliders come equipped with radio and mode-s transponders. Many are being equipped with ADSB and TCAS.'
Be nice if they turned them on then!!
I take the point about GA pilots who have a perverse desire never to speak on the radio who are as much of a menace when they attempt to funnel themselves through narrow corridors of airspace where they can legitimately not talk to anyone. Although they do have the advantage of a reasonable radar return and they generally turn the transponder on.
You don't want to hear my thoughts on FLARM! It's great for what it was designed for but if as a powered aircraft operator you're in the position of being required to have TCAS/TAS you're not going to pay to integrate FLARM as well which means the gliders remain invisible. In effect it's introduced a conflicting standard, and we know how well having multiple standards works out. Personally I think ADS-B is the way ahead and I know the CAA are working on some low cost options for that. Plus people having the confidence to speak on the radio without reciting their whole life story on every transmission.
We can both agree that radio and transponder not switched on is a bad thing, both for gliders and powered aircraft.
FLARM was created because ADSB did not arrive fast enough. It was implemented at the expense of glider pilots (with no legal obligation to do so). Currently gliders are being equipped with POWERfLARM, which integrates both FLARM and TCAS/ADSB. Bashing gliderpilots in general for not working on safety is bull.
Btw:
We have operated a powered glider in the ILS glide path of Munich airport in tight coordination with tower, a place where most GA power pilots would fill their pants. Also possible (although exhausting).
Gliders are the cyclists of the sky; hard to see, unpredictable, and many display no respect for the rules everyone else sharing the sky has to follow.
Also just like with any article on cycling which causes the two wheeled militants come out in force, it seems the gliderists are flocking to the site to down vote any GA pilot talking sense.
Well down vote away, at least while you are pressing buttons down here, you wont be terrorizing others up there.
Typical power pilot attitude. Airspace and traffic awareness is typically much higher with glider pilots than it is with powered planes. I cant even count the number of times I've seen a powered plane fly through a gaggle of gliders circling in a thermal on my fingers. Most often without ANY indication they even noticed any other traffic.
As for the complaints about color, most gliders nowadays have high-vis anti colission markings. A luxury I have yet to see on the many equally white composite powered planes that litter the skies on a good day. And keep in mind, if its VFR airspace, ALL planes have a responsibility to maintain lookoit and traffic separation. And whether you like it or not, if I'm circling in a thermal I actually have a right to keep circling and YOU are obligated to avoid me. If I'm right next to an airfield I might listen in on the radio, but I am under no obligation to report my position and many airports actually prefer gliders to NOT do so as long as they stay out of the airspace.
Same when landing, a motor plane has the luxury of a go-around. I get ONE try, and it'll end on the ground one way or another. And even though on many field the motor and glider circuits are separated and I will do my very best to avoid getting in the way I have had to avoid asshat motor flyers buzzing the circuit more than once.
As for transponders and contacting ATC, in many places small GA and glider contacts actually get filteres from the returns to declutter the screen. There is a good chance ATC cant even see me when I DO carry a transponder. Which makes keeping a visual lookout all the more important.
On top of that there are many vintage gliders still kept airworthy. Do you really expect someone to install a 2000 euro transponder into a plane that probably never ventures far from home and is worth probably about the same?
ALL planes have a responsibility to maintain lookoit and traffic separation
This is entirely true.
And whether you like it or not, if I'm circling in a thermal I actually have a right to keep circling and YOU are obligated to avoid me
And this is not - it contradicts the earlier statement.
Even if you're in a thermal, both aircraft have a responsibility to avoid conflict. If that means you have to leave the thermal because you've seen the other pilot and he hasn't seen you - that's how aviation law works. You do not have a god-given right to stay in the thermal while everyone else gets out of your way, even if power pilots will try to afford you that luxury.
Vic.
This post has been deleted by its author
And this is not - it contradicts the earlier statement.Even if you're in a thermal, both aircraft have a responsibility to avoid conflict. If that means you have to leave the thermal because you've seen the other pilot and he hasn't seen you - that's how aviation law works. You do not have a god-given right to stay in the thermal while everyone else gets out of your way, even if power pilots will try to afford you that luxury.
I did not intend to make it sound like I assume its a god given right. And when in a position to do so I (and most glider pilots) will always do my best to avoid other traffic. Something to keep in mind however is that head on traffic on a colission course is REALLY hard to spot. Circling gliders present a changing profile alternating sunlit and shadowed making them slightly easier to spot. When in a thermal with more than one glider just exiting whenever you want may not be an option. Thus while a glider pilot has an obligation to keep a lookout and get out of the way if he has to most glider pilots will prefer to stay in the gaggle or thermal because it makes them easier to spot. If a motor plane flies through a gaggle of 7 planes he has either plain not looked out or has decided to just fly through it anyway. Which makes him an asshat. The gliders will get out the way, but we won't be happy about it. (Pilot was tracked down and received a VERY stern talking to from police in this case. He was visibly shaken when he saw a cockpit video from one of the gliders showing just how close it came to a midair. He had the sun in his back and was at the same altitude all the way in. There was no way we could see him. He and his copilot admitted to be studying a map because they were lost. It's loss of awareness incidents like this that give glider pilots their hatred for Fuel to Noise converter cowboys.) Like I said in my last post, lets learn from one another. Because there are plenty of glider pilots who don't understand why its a bad idea to be following a cloudstreet right at cloudbase at 200 km/h. And plenty of motor pilots who don't understanding why it might be better for them not to do the same
Thus while a glider pilot has an obligation to keep a lookout and get out of the way if he has to most glider pilots will prefer to stay in the gaggle or thermal
Of course - I've spent my time in thermals, and I understand the desire. And most power pilots would be happy for you to do that. What I was reacting to was the claim that "if I'm circling in a thermal I actually have a right to keep circling and YOU are obligated to avoid me". That bit just isn't true...
(Pilot was tracked down and received a VERY stern talking to from police in this case
It doesn't always work out like that. An acquaintance of mine had an airprox with a glider some while back - he just hadn't seen him. The glider pilot filed the airprox, and in his statement, belaboured how clear the vis was, and how he'd been able to see to power plane coming for miles. They threw the book at him - although the power pilot had failed to see the glider, the glider pilot had deliberately flown a course that led to the airprox even though he know there was a powered plane there.
Vic.
Btw druck, as with cyclists its the few rotten apples in the bunch that cause the bad name. Worldwide gliders make up the majority of air traffic on a good day yet they tend to be involved in proximity or airspace infringement accidents LESS than powered GA. (Atleast according to the accident databases I have access to)
The same goed for GA pilots. Many are well behaved and "we" stay out of each others way. But there are some that just don't want to understand why glider pilots fly the way they do and that feel gliders don't have a place in 'their' skies.
I apologize for the somewhat harsh tone of my last post. It fits the definition of shouty glider pilot idiot perfectly. Unfortunately I had to deal with one of the idiot versions of a GA pilot that day who did his very best to kill me. I fear I stooped to his level a bit. Guess I lived up to my username.
As for the GA pilots hating on glider pilots, I encourage you to take some gliding lessons. I think it would help in the mutual understanding and it might help your flying skills too. Not having an engine really changes the way one thinks about altitude, speed and position in the sky. Might come in handy one day in an engine out scenario (but lets hope it doesn't)
May your skies be just the right amount of cloudy.
'glider pilots use meters, kilometers and kilometers per hour.'
'Glider pilots, refusing to integrate with the rest of aviation and being a general nuisance since 1903.'
NOT TRUE
The FAI, which manages ALL sport aviation, uses metres, kilometres and kilometres per hour for all records and achievements . Whether is for a parachute, single engined light aircraft, balloon or glider.
Pilots use whichever units are generally used in their particular country. Whether they pilot powered aircraft, gliders, hot air balloons, whatever.
As for radio communication - if in unrestricted airspace, there is no legal requirement to transmit your position, speed etc on a radio - which radio frequency would we use anyway, and who would we be talking to??? How would we know what frequency you were using to give you that personal touch?
To enter restricted airspace, all aircraft have to report / ask permission. So we conform with the law and speak to the controllers. If we don't speak to you personally, well I can see why from your attitude.
Also note that gliding took place before powered flight eg Lilienthal in the 1890s, Caley in 1849.
Gliders were built by pioneers such as Jean Marie Le Bris, John J. Montgomery, Otto Lilienthal, Percy Pilcher, Octave Chanute and Augustus Moore Herring
When the glider pilots Wright and Wright successfully flew with an engine, it didn't mean all gliding and other aviation had to change and conform with what powered aircraft then wanted to do.
PS do learn how to spell metre and related units...
'As for radio communication - if in unrestricted airspace, there is no legal requirement to transmit your position, speed etc on a radio - which radio frequency would we use anyway, and who would we be talking to??? How would we know what frequency you were using to give you that personal touch?'
No there is no legal requirement, it doesn't mean it's sensible though. For instance you could talk to London Info they provide coverage outside controlled airspace throughout the UK and were very useful when I once had to divert to Exeter due to weather. If they know roughly where other aircraft are they'll often give you a heads up so you can keep an eye out for them. Similarly the Low Altitude Radar Service (LARS) service provides coverage across large areas of uncontrolled airspace and it would be nice if rather than reporting 'intermittent traffic height unknown, 2 miles to your north' they could say 'glider last reported 4000 above you, 2 miles to your north'. If you're near an airfield, not just inside its ATZ, f****ing tell them where you are, it's not a state secret and it'll reduce the chance of someone flying into you because they didn't know you existed.
If you're not sure what frequency to use, look on the air charts, they're on there, again, not a state secret.
Communication, it's not a dirty word.
PS. I was quoting someone's spelling of metre
I take it Skippy, that these pilots exhibiting dangerous airmanship have been duly reported to whatever version of FAA lurks in your part of planet. Having had to avoid power pilots in rotary and fixed wing blundering over a gliding club airfield without _any_ radio call on gliding or CTAF frequencies I suggest power pilots should not throw stones. Also note that the old units of measurement are still official world standards, not some archaic whim in aviation. European gliders often are metric. Elsewhere your milage will vary. Flown in aircraft with both calibrations and it is not too hard. Altimeter gets me the most. Airspeed and vario straightforward. But I digress.
I have been on public airfields where a few commercial pilots have right royally borked airmain ship rules putting glider pilots at risk. Never seen the opposite. To be fair, the local regional airline is fastidious about briefing their pilots on recreational pilot activity at local airfields. Appropriate radio calls are made and responded to by glider and power. In years we have not had an incident.
As for getting on with other aircraft, back in the day when I were a lad, doing circuits in a Blanik at a country airfield with an F28 doing circuits for pilot training. Back then we did not have radios, but the PIC landed, walked over to us, explained what his plane would be doing and we kept right out of his way. A 5 mile plus final approach meant we could see him on approach meaning we could stay well clear and did so. No doubt the Blanik showed up on radar. Simple applied manners.
Same applied at a big country airfield with a long thunderstorm front approaching a few years ago. Commercial light twins, GA, a few ultralights and many gliders all headed for the ground. The commercial guys had schedules to keep and security issues I wont go into. Everyone practised good airmanship. All landed in good order, quickly with no issues. It can be done and often is, so I suggest your local pilots should lift their game. Gravity does not differentiate between modes of aviation.
As for technical issues at 90,000, I am informed by types who use Fortran that the airflow over the wings at that height is not far off supersonic. The project is close to Coffin Corner in upper part of flight. Google term. The model after is what I want to see. Harder to get from 90,000 to 100,000 than 10,000 to 90,000 apparently.
Personally I have not got over 17,000ft but still trying. And yes, it is cold up there. No drinks, the bottle was solid quickly. Best part was being able to look down on cloud bands and fly over decent Cus at a safe height. Pottering along in winter sun at a slow speed in gentle wave makes for a pleasant afternoon, until one has to pick up speed for a safe descent to home airfield. Gliders have drafts.
'I take it Skippy, that these pilots exhibiting dangerous airmanship have been duly reported to whatever version of FAA lurks in your part of planet.'
We have a thing called the UK Airprox Board that assess all near misses that are reported. You can read their summaries online, although there is a representative from the British Gliding Association on the board it's rare for input from the gliders actually involved in any Airprox as it's almost impossible to trace them. The powered aircraft asshatery is generally easier to trace.
https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/home/
If it helps I do regularly point out to powered aircraft that committing practice IFR near a gliding site may void their warranty.
Have to admit my first thought on seeing the picture was that it was a Burt Rutan / Scaled Composites design (the people doing the Virgin Galactic craft, amongst other things) and that it was interesting that Airbus would be working with them. But turns out it's not. I guess small round windows is the only feasible choice so they all end up looking a bit similar?
"...sample the Earth's atmosphere, free from contaminants produced by the sampling aircraft's own engines..."
A six foot long sampling pipe stuck out the nose would solve that.
Plus, if they're riding an updraft or mountain wave, then the air they're in came from below recently.
The air they will be riding did not come from very far below the glider. It's a ripple in the atmosphere, the air being sampled would only have come from a small distance below their current height. It is not rising air from the ground. It's air travelling horizontally having its path disturbed by the mountain.
"Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air. . . .
Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or ever eagle flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God."
(The author, a pilot in the RAF, died in a training accident in on Dec 11th 1941)
One of my favorite poems and very appropriate. I'm also pleased that someone beat me to posting it. I
suspect we have someone around here who is so techy they don't get it. Wish there more upvotes to give.
'Son, we are about the break the surly bonds of gravity, and punch the face of God.' - H Simpson
Also 'Low Flight' the helicopter pilot's equivalent
'Oh, I've slipped the surly bonds of earth
And hovered out of ground effect on semi-rigid blades;
Earthward I've auto'ed and met the rising brush of non-paved terrain
And done a thousand things you would never care to
Skidded and dropped and flared
Low in the heat soaked roar.
Confined there, I've chased the earthbound traffic
And lost the race to insignificant headwinds;
Forward and up a little in ground effect
I've topped the General's hedge with drooping turns
Where never Skyhawk or even Phantom flew.
Shaking and pulling collective,
I've lumbered The low untresspassed halls of victor airways,
Put out my hand and touched a tree.'
Since the FAA can't get their tiny minds around the idea of LOHAN, maybe you can get these guys to take LOHAN up and launch it? Won't be as high as you might want to go, but would make an interesting test flight.
Of course, the government down there would probably also want you to take out a permit to build an explosives factory, so it's probably a non-starter. Sigh.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
