Weak link breaks?
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Ding Dong
Yup, that was me. Something I picked up from Bo. He calls it "ringing the bell". (think of someone's body swinging back and forth as they occilate). If you ring the bell once, you can still fix it. If you ring the bell twice, it's time to get on it or get off the line. If you ring it three times, you best be off the line.
Weak link breaks?
Bah! Landing in fields is for pussies; real men land in trees! - Hugh
On 26 Aug 2005, at 14:17, batmanh3 wrote:
>
> Rance -
>
> What I was referring to was the post that Scott made on one of the
> other threads that Training hills are poor substitutes for landing
> practice. It might be semantics, but "approach (dbf or otherwise),
> downwind flying (sometimes), and flying through gradient" are part
> of the flying phase. In my vernacular, landing is the phase where
> you are established on final, correcting for turbulence and
> approaching the flare. If anything, training hills tend to
> reinforce that more than any tow park due to the fact that usually
> tow parks have HUGE LZs that aren't surrounded by trees or hills
> thereby causing a gradient. Having received my H2 by flying
> Taylor's Hill 90% of the time, you are under turbulent gradient
> conditions most of the time. Especially when a spot is involved,
> the minute you take off you are mentally setting up your downwind &
> base then rolling final into thermals cooking off in the LZ and the
> forcing yourself to pop a picture perfect flare to avoid
> faceplanting into a load
> of fresh cow crap. If that isn't good landing practice than our
> foot-launch instructors must be miracle workers because most of the
> pilots they have graduated have done quite well on their first
> mountain flights.Batman
>
On 26 Aug 2005, at 14:17, batmanh3 wrote:
>
> Rance -
>
> What I was referring to was the post that Scott made on one of the
> other threads that Training hills are poor substitutes for landing
> practice. It might be semantics, but "approach (dbf or otherwise),
> downwind flying (sometimes), and flying through gradient" are part
> of the flying phase. In my vernacular, landing is the phase where
> you are established on final, correcting for turbulence and
> approaching the flare. If anything, training hills tend to
> reinforce that more than any tow park due to the fact that usually
> tow parks have HUGE LZs that aren't surrounded by trees or hills
> thereby causing a gradient. Having received my H2 by flying
> Taylor's Hill 90% of the time, you are under turbulent gradient
> conditions most of the time. Especially when a spot is involved,
> the minute you take off you are mentally setting up your downwind &
> base then rolling final into thermals cooking off in the LZ and the
> forcing yourself to pop a picture perfect flare to avoid
> faceplanting into a load
> of fresh cow crap. If that isn't good landing practice than our
> foot-launch instructors must be miracle workers because most of the
> pilots they have graduated have done quite well on their first
> mountain flights.Batman
>
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
Weak link breaks?
I see no reason to incorporate two weak links in a two point release system.
I use three - and have been pushing for multiple weak links for five years.
Weak Link 1 is regular strength, is installed at the top end of the primary
bridle, and makes things work like the primary release.
Weak Link 2 is a bit under double strength, joins the bottom end of the
primary bridle and the Ronstan sailmaker's thimble, and provides protection in the
event of a primary bridle wrap. The thimble keeps the primary and secondary
bridles from sawing each other apart and prevents those two elements from
functioning as a locking mechanism at the time separation is really desirable.
Weak Link 3 is regular strength, is installed at the port end of the
secondary bridle and engaged by the pin of the port secondary release, and helps keep
you alive WHEN your cable activated primary release fails or your primary
bridle wraps. Also, if the primary release mechanism of your two point system is
back home in the closet and/or you decide to tow one point...
I see no reason to fly with only one shoulder mounted release. If you
dispense with the thimble or tow one point you REALLY ought to have two of them. If
you incorporate the thimble or tow one point you REALLY ought to have two of
them (see Steve Kinsley's 2005/08/26 post (don't quite understand that one -
did the weak link lasso the eye of the parachute pin?)).
I've been thinking that all secondary bridles are way too long. Gonna start
experimenting with 110 mm next Ridgely trip. Should reduce the wrap potential
at that junction from no freaking way to incredibly no freaking way.
The barrel release I make incorporates a straight parachute pin and is
lighter, stronger, and more efficient than the standard curved pin job with none of
the latter's propensity to open as a result of contact with the basetube.
The weirdo contraption on Steve's right ought to be mandatory equipment for
the one point aerotow crowd. It'll probably take a while but someone's gonna
die 'cause he or she wasn't using it. I've taken his concept and trimmed
things down to a little over the mass of a photon.
We've got the most reliable, safest, strongest, lightest, cleanest stuff out
there, I doubt there's any room for significant improvement, and it's too bad
no one else is taking much advantage of it.
I use three - and have been pushing for multiple weak links for five years.
Weak Link 1 is regular strength, is installed at the top end of the primary
bridle, and makes things work like the primary release.
Weak Link 2 is a bit under double strength, joins the bottom end of the
primary bridle and the Ronstan sailmaker's thimble, and provides protection in the
event of a primary bridle wrap. The thimble keeps the primary and secondary
bridles from sawing each other apart and prevents those two elements from
functioning as a locking mechanism at the time separation is really desirable.
Weak Link 3 is regular strength, is installed at the port end of the
secondary bridle and engaged by the pin of the port secondary release, and helps keep
you alive WHEN your cable activated primary release fails or your primary
bridle wraps. Also, if the primary release mechanism of your two point system is
back home in the closet and/or you decide to tow one point...
I see no reason to fly with only one shoulder mounted release. If you
dispense with the thimble or tow one point you REALLY ought to have two of them. If
you incorporate the thimble or tow one point you REALLY ought to have two of
them (see Steve Kinsley's 2005/08/26 post (don't quite understand that one -
did the weak link lasso the eye of the parachute pin?)).
I've been thinking that all secondary bridles are way too long. Gonna start
experimenting with 110 mm next Ridgely trip. Should reduce the wrap potential
at that junction from no freaking way to incredibly no freaking way.
The barrel release I make incorporates a straight parachute pin and is
lighter, stronger, and more efficient than the standard curved pin job with none of
the latter's propensity to open as a result of contact with the basetube.
The weirdo contraption on Steve's right ought to be mandatory equipment for
the one point aerotow crowd. It'll probably take a while but someone's gonna
die 'cause he or she wasn't using it. I've taken his concept and trimmed
things down to a little over the mass of a photon.
We've got the most reliable, safest, strongest, lightest, cleanest stuff out
there, I doubt there's any room for significant improvement, and it's too bad
no one else is taking much advantage of it.
Weak link breaks?
In a message dated 8/30/05 9:02:02 AM, TadErcksn@aol.com writes:
<< I see no reason to incorporate two weak links in a two point release
system.
I use three - and have been pushing for multiple weak links for five years. >>
Tad's post is difficult to read but I've seen his work. His release
mechanism is elegent in it's simplicity and effectiveness.
Dan T.
<< I see no reason to incorporate two weak links in a two point release
system.
I use three - and have been pushing for multiple weak links for five years. >>
Tad's post is difficult to read but I've seen his work. His release
mechanism is elegent in it's simplicity and effectiveness.
Dan T.
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
One reason Tad's stuff hasn't caught on is that he usually writes from the "You all are stupid" or "You all are going to die" point of view.
He's a pretty sharp guy and makes interesting stuff. It would be a great help to the rest of us if he posted pictures of his handiwork--pretty hard to visualize his verbal discriptions. Does he actually produces these for sale to the flying public? I would also suggest he send out a few units to prominent individuals in the towing community for stress testing.
marc
He's a pretty sharp guy and makes interesting stuff. It would be a great help to the rest of us if he posted pictures of his handiwork--pretty hard to visualize his verbal discriptions. Does he actually produces these for sale to the flying public? I would also suggest he send out a few units to prominent individuals in the towing community for stress testing.
marc
Great Googly-moo!
Tad's point of view is irrelevant to me---there's no intelligent reason to ignore his work if it is superior to what we're all currently using. (The sport would never improve if everyone thought "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)One reason Tad's stuff hasn't caught on is that he usually writes from the "You all are stupid" or "You all are going to die" point of view.
Scott
As with many changes in avaition, change is approached with a bit of skepticism. Rightfully so. There's something to be said for "tried and true" methods... by strapping on somehting new, you become a test pilot. The unknown and unforseen become your greatest risk factors. It's up to each of us to individually asses the risks/rewards for ourselves.
That said, I think I can speak a bit about Tadd's releases. I use both Tadd's and the traditional barrel release systems on a daily basis. Neither to me is superior to the other. They are extremely similar (both simple barrel releases). Tadd's are less prone to accidental release (read: nearly impossible)... this holds true for the basetube release scenario. This is both good and bad. What helps in one respect is a downside in an other. The question is how easily do you like your release to release? A traditional barrel is easier (think: while wearing gloves). Personally I don't find it to be an issue, but like I said, to each his own.
They are also easier to rig incorrectly and are thus more prone to the release failure where they hang up on the eye side of the pin. Granted, it's a bit of a trick to get it wrong, but it can happen and it is easier. It's an obvious thing when you know what to look for (but then, so is hooking into your glider right?).
At the end of the day, I like both release styles... they're just a bit different.
I think Scott has a good point. Tadd's oppinion is irrelevent (so is mine for that matter). The way I'd put it is that the only oppinion that matters is your own... after all, it's your butt in the sling.
$.02USD
Jim
That said, I think I can speak a bit about Tadd's releases. I use both Tadd's and the traditional barrel release systems on a daily basis. Neither to me is superior to the other. They are extremely similar (both simple barrel releases). Tadd's are less prone to accidental release (read: nearly impossible)... this holds true for the basetube release scenario. This is both good and bad. What helps in one respect is a downside in an other. The question is how easily do you like your release to release? A traditional barrel is easier (think: while wearing gloves). Personally I don't find it to be an issue, but like I said, to each his own.
They are also easier to rig incorrectly and are thus more prone to the release failure where they hang up on the eye side of the pin. Granted, it's a bit of a trick to get it wrong, but it can happen and it is easier. It's an obvious thing when you know what to look for (but then, so is hooking into your glider right?).
At the end of the day, I like both release styles... they're just a bit different.
I think Scott has a good point. Tadd's oppinion is irrelevent (so is mine for that matter). The way I'd put it is that the only oppinion that matters is your own... after all, it's your butt in the sling.
$.02USD
Jim