- Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:40 pm
#284860
When you fly a new glider or step up in the performance ladder.....do you actually go to the training hill
Sky_Walker wrote:I voted yes but probably shouldn't count as I've only bought one wing - eagle 164. Yeah I went back to the training hills but I hadn't been gone for long. I've only gone back since to buy breakfast for all the instructors on the hill.Next time I go up that's where I'm starting. Might be mid July, though.
Might be time for breakfast on the hill again ...
J Fritsche wrote:A day at the training hill at least once/year is a very wise idea for every pilot. It either restores confidence or makes it clear that more time should be spent there. The biggest obstacle is the availability of decent training hills. I spent WAY more time than the average pilot on training hills 20+ years ago, not because I sucked, but because that's all I had remotely close by. Flights of a few seconds were a thrill because that's all I could get at the time. The payoff was the development of very solid launching and landing skills. But if too much time goes by without regular flying, I still want to get back to the little hill to get my confidence back.I agree with John. By the way, PJ, Lookout's Big Hill isn't 150 AGL...MSL, yes. I carried an altimeter from the bottom to the top and I got 80 feet or so for the usable part. It might be 150 feet high if you go up the hill and into the bushes
Avnav8r wrote:J Fritsche wrote:A day at the training hill at least once/year is a very wise idea for every pilot. It either restores confidence or makes it clear that more time should be spent there. The biggest obstacle is the availability of decent training hills. I spent WAY more time than the average pilot on training hills 20+ years ago, not because I sucked, but because that's all I had remotely close by. Flights of a few seconds were a thrill because that's all I could get at the time. The payoff was the development of very solid launching and landing skills. But if too much time goes by without regular flying, I still want to get back to the little hill to get my confidence back.I agree with John. By the way, PJ, Lookout's Big Hill isn't 150 AGL...MSL, yes. I carried an altimeter from the bottom to the top and I got 80 feet or so for the usable part. It might be 150 feet high if you go up the hill and into the bushes
The Elings Park training hill in Santa Barbara is at least 150 feet high or higher and in the right conditions and on the right glider, it is soarable. The Big Hill at Lookout is soarable in 20 m.p.h. winds, but I wouldn't want to be the one who does it.
John Stokes
www.osceolabaldeagle.com
www.soarsouth.org
Avnav8r wrote: By the way, PJ, Lookout's Big Hill isn't 150 AGL...MSL, yes. I carried an altimeter from the bottom to the top and I got 80 feet or so for the usable part.Imagine how many wing spans tall the hill is... most definitely not 5! Still, at 80 feet, students are able to perform reversing 90 degree turns and foot land.
jjcote wrote:Similarly, Morningside has three launches, called "the 150", "the 250", and "the 450". Both Google Earth and USGS put the "450" at 360 feet AGL. Curiously, though, the one GPS track that I have does show it as 450 feet. Next time I'm there, I should check it with a vario.Ya- I used Google Earth to calculate glide slopes... and had elevation estimates off by over 15% (and vague regional returns for coordinate location input). There are intentional errors in the free version of GE- an 'incentive' to buy the license for the 'pro' version- something Google doesn't document.
Avnav8r wrote:The Big Hill at Lookout is soarable in 20 m.p.h. winds, but I wouldn't want to be the one who does it.I've soared the Big Hill- but not when launching from there! Landing found the most pronounced wind gradient I've ever encountered. Strange to dive down at a place you normally don't fly close above...
Mavi Gogun wrote:Hmmmmaybe... but USGS being off and in agreement with that?jjcote wrote:Similarly, Morningside has three launches, called "the 150", "the 250", and "the 450". Both Google Earth and USGS put the "450" at 360 feet AGL. Curiously, though, the one GPS track that I have does show it as 450 feet. Next time I'm there, I should check it with a vario.Ya- I used Google Earth to calculate glide slopes... and had elevation estimates off by over 15% (and vague regional returns for coordinate location input). There are intentional errors in the free version of GE- an 'incentive' to buy the license for the 'pro' version- something Google doesn't document.
jjcote wrote:Hmmmmaybe... but USGS being off and in agreement with that?I don't know as the altitude accuracy changes between Google products- only the results of lat-lon coordinate entry. Is the USGS data the source of what Google built its product from? I can't imagine any error being built into the USGS maps...
http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5510761
18 contour lines, 6 meters each.