Question regarding training hills...Can someone possibly post some minimum sizes for a training hill and associated landing/runout area? How small is too small? How low is too low? What's the minimum angle required? (To be useful, that is.) I'm asking because I think we could find and use more training hills if they don't have to be Smithsburg-sized (although more Smithsburgs would be nice!).
There are hills near my house (and others I see driving around) that look like they might have potential...except (for example) they only have 20-30 yards of runout before a line of trees...or they look like they might not be quite tall enough.
Do they have to be situated so the wind can/does blow up the hill? I know that's better...but is a no-wind training hill pretty bad? (Or okay if it's tall/steep enough?)
Scott
Training hills: how small is too small?
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
SheilaGardner
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:14 pm
Training hills: how small is too small?
in Cleveland we used an 80 foot hill at a beach as a training hill-
worked great! Don't know that the hill itself was ever soared but a
cliff very close to it was. Sheila
On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> Question regarding training hills...Can someone possibly post some
> minimum sizes for a training hill and associated landing/runout
> area? How small is too small? How low is too low? What's the
> minimum angle required? (To be useful, that is.) I'm asking because
> I think we could find and use more training hills if they don't
> have to be Smithsburg-sized (although more Smithsburgs would be
> nice!).
>
> There are hills near my house (and others I see driving around)
> that look like they might have potential...except (for example)
> they only have 20-30 yards of runout before a line of trees...or
> they look like they might not be quite tall enough.
>
> Do they have to be situated so the wind can/does blow up the hill?
> I know that's better...but is a no-wind training hill pretty bad?
> (Or okay if it's tall/steep enough?)
>
> Scott
>
>
worked great! Don't know that the hill itself was ever soared but a
cliff very close to it was. Sheila
On Aug 16, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Scott wrote:
>
> Question regarding training hills...Can someone possibly post some
> minimum sizes for a training hill and associated landing/runout
> area? How small is too small? How low is too low? What's the
> minimum angle required? (To be useful, that is.) I'm asking because
> I think we could find and use more training hills if they don't
> have to be Smithsburg-sized (although more Smithsburgs would be
> nice!).
>
> There are hills near my house (and others I see driving around)
> that look like they might have potential...except (for example)
> they only have 20-30 yards of runout before a line of trees...or
> they look like they might not be quite tall enough.
>
> Do they have to be situated so the wind can/does blow up the hill?
> I know that's better...but is a no-wind training hill pretty bad?
> (Or okay if it's tall/steep enough?)
>
> Scott
>
>
Slope steeper than the glider's glideslope.
Enough room out front (flat) to land without possibility of hitting something.
Upslope breeze... yes, it matters. But then, all hills have upslope at some point, it's a matter of how often.
Tall enough? Well, can you get the glider airborne? Anything after that is gravy. You can't teach someone to H2, but you can teach footlaunch/landing. It's done at Kittyhawk Kites on a daily basis.
Rob McKenzie uses a 6 foot bump of a hill, a condor and 150ft bungie for starters. He moves on after that, but you're asking minimums. A flat field and a scooter go a long way too.
Jim
Enough room out front (flat) to land without possibility of hitting something.
Upslope breeze... yes, it matters. But then, all hills have upslope at some point, it's a matter of how often.
Tall enough? Well, can you get the glider airborne? Anything after that is gravy. You can't teach someone to H2, but you can teach footlaunch/landing. It's done at Kittyhawk Kites on a daily basis.
Rob McKenzie uses a 6 foot bump of a hill, a condor and 150ft bungie for starters. He moves on after that, but you're asking minimums. A flat field and a scooter go a long way too.
Jim
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I train at a hilly airstrip which has several "bumps" maybe 25ft tall. Just enough to get a student a good launch and landing, though no turns. Every class starts with at least a half dozen practice footlaunch and landings before hooking up to the scooter for higher flights and turn meneuvers. My students have excellant agressive launches which I know will serve them well in the mountains when the time comes. I also mix the occassional aerotow tandem in for approach training and can transition a scooter tow student to aerotowing fairly easily.
The Condor is such a floater that you can get a student airborn in almost no wind on virtually flat terrain. I've found that getting that initial taste of independent flight, however modest, is very important in generating interest in continuing lessons.
I don't agree with Jim that HG pilots are in some way whacked-out extremist idiots, nor have I ever had someone call saying they were interested in taking up the sport because they heard of a crash or accident and thought it would be a cool way to go. Certainly standing in front of an on-coming train would be alot cheaper.
Everyone has a different reason or motivation--but I think it is safe to say that flying HGs and Pgs provide them with a unique experience with rules that are completely different from those in the routine day-to-day world. I think HG pilots are by definition people who see things as possible which to most people seem impossibe. We are special people people and should be proud of it, not make excuses for being viewed as crazies (well, OK, maybe there are a COUPLE of idiots in our ranks
).
marc
The Condor is such a floater that you can get a student airborn in almost no wind on virtually flat terrain. I've found that getting that initial taste of independent flight, however modest, is very important in generating interest in continuing lessons.
I don't agree with Jim that HG pilots are in some way whacked-out extremist idiots, nor have I ever had someone call saying they were interested in taking up the sport because they heard of a crash or accident and thought it would be a cool way to go. Certainly standing in front of an on-coming train would be alot cheaper.
Everyone has a different reason or motivation--but I think it is safe to say that flying HGs and Pgs provide them with a unique experience with rules that are completely different from those in the routine day-to-day world. I think HG pilots are by definition people who see things as possible which to most people seem impossibe. We are special people people and should be proud of it, not make excuses for being viewed as crazies (well, OK, maybe there are a COUPLE of idiots in our ranks
).marc
Great Googly-moo!
Scott,
A good 'Training Hill' is defined by a pilot's needs and what's available. If a student doesn't have any other training methods available to them, then ANY hill is a blessing. However, NO MATTER HOW SMALL A HILL, you have to not only account for obstacles out front for runout but you should take into consideration any disturbence from the nearest objects there as well. That will be affected by the wind speed too. I've used a hill as small as 15-20 ft. for lauch/landing practice. That's really hitting on the edge of the minimum that I consider useful for my needs though. But for a first day student, that could be very useful for the steps just after ground handling.
Like Jim said regarding something less than 100', "You can't teach someone to H2". Unfortunately this INCLUDES Taylors. In addition, Taylors is not tall enough to successfully teach wind gradient, flying downwind, or DBF approaches. I've not been to Lookout Mt. but I understand that it might be sufficient for that level of training. I would think that would take at least a 300' hill, and a steep one at that.
With the addition of the new teaching techniques of today (aerotow & scooter tow), the use of training hills for mature training has become antiquated. If a student is looking for some professional training that includes some 'Air time', there are much better ways for them to accomplish this.
Regarding runout, look at the changes at Taylors. The new fence gets in the way if you are looking to go straight ahead. This REQUIRES a turn for most gliders if launching from the top of the hill. Of course you don't have to start at the top do you?
There's just a lot of interrelated contengencies.
If you are looking for launch/landing practice, then many of the smaller fields you are referring to might be good candidates. Don't forget about owner's permissions & the legalities either.
Just my 2c worth.
Rance
A good 'Training Hill' is defined by a pilot's needs and what's available. If a student doesn't have any other training methods available to them, then ANY hill is a blessing. However, NO MATTER HOW SMALL A HILL, you have to not only account for obstacles out front for runout but you should take into consideration any disturbence from the nearest objects there as well. That will be affected by the wind speed too. I've used a hill as small as 15-20 ft. for lauch/landing practice. That's really hitting on the edge of the minimum that I consider useful for my needs though. But for a first day student, that could be very useful for the steps just after ground handling.
Like Jim said regarding something less than 100', "You can't teach someone to H2". Unfortunately this INCLUDES Taylors. In addition, Taylors is not tall enough to successfully teach wind gradient, flying downwind, or DBF approaches. I've not been to Lookout Mt. but I understand that it might be sufficient for that level of training. I would think that would take at least a 300' hill, and a steep one at that.
With the addition of the new teaching techniques of today (aerotow & scooter tow), the use of training hills for mature training has become antiquated. If a student is looking for some professional training that includes some 'Air time', there are much better ways for them to accomplish this.
Regarding runout, look at the changes at Taylors. The new fence gets in the way if you are looking to go straight ahead. This REQUIRES a turn for most gliders if launching from the top of the hill. Of course you don't have to start at the top do you?
There's just a lot of interrelated contengencies. If you are looking for launch/landing practice, then many of the smaller fields you are referring to might be good candidates. Don't forget about owner's permissions & the legalities either.
Just my 2c worth.
Rance