So I was looking at the description of a ASW 27 B glider and ran across this statement:
Two water tanks in the wing plus a further 35 liter tank in the fuselage enable the ASW 27 B to carry more water ballast than any other 15 m glider and also give it the widest range of wing loadings
If a glider is trying to stay aloft as long as possible, wouldn't it be better to be light? Why would you add ballast and be able to dump it?
Mass doesn't affect the maximum distance, only the maximum endurance.
For example, image two identical planes A and B: A weights 50kg less than B. Assuming no wind (horizontal / vertical) and speed of best glide, both gliders will land at the exact same spot.
The lighter airplane A however will arrive later than B, as the speed of best glide is less than for B. In conclusion you can say, that additional mass only increases cruise speed, but not the travel distance.
Glider competitions are most of the time a route you have to fly in the shortest time possible. So that means, if you have a higher speed of best glide, you can fly faster in competitions.
The only downside to having a higher weight is, that your liftrate in thermals will be decreased and due to the higher speed it is harder to center the thermals.
It is to some extend also possible to shift the Centre of Gravity (CG) with the added load. The further it is to the aft limit, the higher your maximum distance is. This is because you will have less down-force from the stabilizer required. (If the CG is at the front limit, you will need to pull the control stick in order to fly level, therefore you have more drag). However I think this is rather a positive side effect and most of the time the water is used for flying faster.
Source: I am a glider pilot and currently doing my ATPL training.
Force's answer is pretty much the answer, but also consider that mass = inertia. If you weigh more, you are less likely to be disturbed by any given outside force (turbulence). A lighter plane is more maneuverable but it will also bounce around a lot.
I cannot comment on how much of an effect the ballasts in question have on this for a glider, though.
In addition to the other answers, let´s look at this L/D(=E) diagram of the enticing DG-1000 from DG Flugzeugbau (but fear not, 'tis true for all gliders) :
The best L/D ratio is equal for different wing loadings, but is occuring at different speeds - the higher the load, the higher speed. You can also see that the minimum/stall speed is also higher for higher loads.
The next diagram shows the polar curve:
You can see that the minimum sink rate occurs at lightest load. The heavier the load, the longer you will have to circle in the same thermal for a given height gain.
The loading is a tradeoff between higher average speed and less efficient climbing. In case of strong thermals and/or long glide intervals, the optimum moves toward more, in weak conditions towards less or no ballast. The good thing is that you can dump water rather quickly (also partially), so that in a competition you usually tend to fill up (and dump in case) rather than start light (the Quintus e.g can take up to 250 liters!)
Aft ballast in the vertical tailplane is sometimes used to balance a forward CG caused by water in the wings - depending on your ship, partial dumping can be problematic.
Of course there are many philosophies and tactical debates concerning the "water or no water" dispute, but once you´ve overtaken an identical, lighter ship with full wings and no height loss, you get to see how much fun ballast can be (until the next thermal, that is).
So I was looking at the description of a ASW 27 B glider and ran across this statement: Two water tanks in the wing plus a further 35 liter tank in the fuselage enable the ASW 27 B to carry more water ballast than any other 15 m glider and also give it the widest range of wing loadings If a glider is trying to stay aloft as long as possible, wouldn't it be better to be light? Why would you add ballast and be able to dump it?
Without getting into the mess of redesigning existing Flight Data Recorders, I have a simple proposal that I think would help in deep water crashes. I propose that several floating cushion sets be distributed around the plane (tail section, along fuselage, etc.). These FDR floaties would be about the size of a seat cushion, but they'd be wrapped in a water soluble cover. When a plane crashes... a better idea of what happened. Wouldn't this be easy to implement without disturbing current FDR use and development? These would be destroyed in a fiery land crash, but that is not their purpose
I have not even an idea about how I would search for that on Google, that is why I'm trying my chance here. As electrical engineer I have no clue about fluid mechanics. We all now that when water is pumped very fast into firefighters tube, it gets very rigid and tends to be straight. What is this effect called, I'm interested in doing some research about the forces applied by such a tube from its initial folded position to the final position. Thanks
to switch to ground frequency with this clearance (assume I just landed)? N12345, right on E, cross 27 R, contact ground .9 Should I call ground (or switch frequency, so I no longer hear the tower) before or after crossing 27 R? My by-the-book assumption would be immediately, as there's no "then" or "after crossing" or similar, but somehow that feels wrong. I suppose normally it doesn't really matter, but in the case of someone (which includes me, everyone makes mistakes) doing something wrong, where would they call me as I'm about to cross 27 R? The reason I ask is that I saw exactly
Some light aircraft now have airframe parachutes. If a pilot does have to pull the chute on a Cirrus (for example), is the aircraft flyable or at least repairable after landing or is it a write-off? What G forces are involved in the impact? I realize that there are lots of possible variables here, but let's assume that the parachute deploys correctly and in plenty of time for a stabilized descent; touchdown is in 'ideal' conditions, i.e. on level, unobstructed ground; and impact forces are as described in the Cirrus CAPS guide: The airplane will assume its touchdown attitude to optimize
Why is it that black boxes don't float? From what I gather the answer is: So they will not float away from a water crash site. The ping can be heard underwater with sonar. Finding the ping, finds the site. But why not have two black boxes one that floats and one that stays with the aircraft? That way if a plane is lost at sea, if we find the black box floating, we could use the data to find the other black box and the crash site. Plus the benefits of having a redundancy are enormous.
of the materials needed to protect their contents in the event of a crash, are quite dense and unable to float in water. I base this impression on news reporting of other airliner crashes (such as Air France..., the writer of the article, or I (or some combination thereof) misunderstand something about flight recorders and their behavior in water. My questions are these: Do flight recorders float on water? If so, why? I know that flight recorders are equipped with underwater locator beacons. Are they also equipped with radio beacons (either an active transmitter or a some passive device like a corner
button, after the co-pilot (Skiles) handed over control of the aircraft: 15:27:23.2 - Sully: My aircraft. 15:27:24.0 - Skiles: Your aircraft. 15:27:26.5 - FWC: Priority left. I'm curious as to why there's a need for this button at all? Here's a short video on YouTube, demonstrating this.
to occur. During wind-tunnel tests it is possible to increase the flutter speed to have access to the divergence speed first by using some small masses smartly placed on the wing. This is due to the fact that usually flutter speed is smaller than divergence speed. Is it always the case for aircraft (without additional masses on the wing)? If not do you have any example? If yes do you have an explanation why or a mathematical proof of it?
If I were to redo my avionics to only include a WAAS GPS unit and two comm radios, would anything prevent me from operating IFR? 14 CFR 91.205(d) only states that my airplane must have: (2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown. I'm aware that this is not the most bulletproof way to fly hard IFR. In this case, assume that the aircraft is primarily used for currency/proficiency and the occasional light IFR flight.