Originally Posted by cliffkot

I would think that would have to factor in wind speed? For example, it the wind were a steady 20 knots, and you flew directly into it at a 20 knot climb speed, the plane would be going straight up ( in a relatively level attitude of course) like an elevator. Is that how it works?

Yes, you are correct.

This highlights the importance of standard terminology. The term 'best rate of climb/distance' does not exist in aviation.

Originally Posted by Gerry__

Yes, you are correct.

This highlights the importance of standard terminology. The term 'best rate of climb/distance' does not exist in aviation.

well, in the case of it being perfectly vertical it would be infinite which isn't a useful number. it's a term most used in STOL comparisons for clearing obstacles in the mentioned box canyon example

Originally Posted by coreman

well, in the case of it being perfectly vertical it would be infinite which isn't a useful number. it's a term most used in STOL comparisons for clearing obstacles in the mentioned box canyon example

Ok, can you link to such a comparison? I still maintain that best rate of climb is constant and best angle of climb changes with wind strength.

Btw, a vertical climb out is 90 degrees, infinity doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by Gerry__

Ok, can you link to such a comparison? I still maintain that best rate of climb is constant and best angle of climb changes with wing strength.

Btw, a vertical climb out is 90 degrees, not not intimate.

angle is 90, rate/horizontal distance is infinite/undefined (divide by zero)

Wing strength has nothing to do with these. If you meant WIND strength, that only changes the angle relative to the ground observer, not for the plane. The angle of attack will be the same regardless of the wind, the "river of air" will just carry that frame of reference back at differing speeds. you need to stop thinking about "flying from the tower"

best rate of climb is a function of the performance of the power plant and the drag of the airframe and will be at a fixed angle of attack for a given plane within the plane's frame of reference. The wind just moves that frame of reference relative to the observer, like watching someone walk down a flat car on a moving train. They don't walk any faster because they are walking towards the front versus the back of the train but they appear to relative to a person watching the train pass from a railroad crossing (ground frame of reference).

Rate of climb
Angle of climb
Angle of attack
Frame of reference

Originally Posted by coreman

angle is 90, rate/horizontal distance is infinite/undefined (divide by zero)

Wing strength has nothing to do with these. If you meant WIND strength, that only changes the angle relative to the ground observer, not for the plane. The angle of attack will be the same regardless of the wind, the "river of air" will just carry that frame of reference back at differing speeds. you need to stop thinking about "flying from the tower"

best rate of climb is a function of the performance of the power plant and the drag of the airframe and will be at a fixed angle of attack for a given plane within the plane's frame of reference. The wind just moves that frame of reference relative to the observer, like watching someone walk down a flat car on a moving train. They don't walk any faster because they are walking towards the front versus the back of the train but they appear to relative to a person watching the train pass from a railroad crossing (ground frame of reference).

Rate of climb
Angle of climb
Angle of attack
Frame of reference

Look, people are confusing rate of climb with angle of climb, but I'm not confused at all.

Like I also said, rate of climb/distance isn't a recognised term in its own right.

Originally Posted by Gerry__

Yes, you are correct.

This highlights the importance of standard terminology. The term 'best rate of climb/distance' does not exist in aviation.

Terminology is confusing enough without people inventing new ones, but "rate" is the ratio of any parameter to any other parameter. Rate of climb can be expressed as feet per minute or feet per mile.

Originally Posted by cliffkot

I would think that would have to factor in wind speed? For example, it the wind were a steady 20 knots, and you flew directly into it at a 20 knot climb speed, the plane would be going straight up ( in a relatively level attitude of course) like an elevator. Is that how it works?

I don't know what you mean by "20 knot climb speed". Flying directly into a 20 knot wind with an airspeed of 20 knots the plane would remain stationary with respect to the ground but would not necessarily be going straight up. It could be gaining or losing altitude, or neither, depending on angle of attack.

There are reasonably priced "finders." Check this web site.

http://www.loc8tor.com/gps

Rick

Article on plane locators
http://www.flyesl.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=237

Originally Posted by Rickn816

There are reasonably priced "finders." Check this web site.

Hello big brother! Now you can keep track of your truck, your boat, bicycle, motorcycle, even your girl. (see the pictures in the ad) It doesn't say how much it weighs, but it would have to have a battery and transmitter powerful enough to send a signal to a satellite (and then there are the user-fees after you have bought it. It says it is ideal for dogs and large animals but is too large for a cat to "carry comfortably".Still, for large and expensive planes, it might be worth while.

Originally Posted by aeajr

Article on plane locators
http://www.flyesl.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=237

These options look like more realistic solutions for glider pilots. That other option is more suited to keeping track of your girlfriend while you are at work, even if she made a quick detour to Hawaii. I haven't lost a plane yet, but have come close a couple of times. One of them I found the next day, after a sleepless night and a total of 5 hours of bashing through the bush.

Originally Posted by Rickn816

There are reasonably priced "finders." Check this web site.

http://www.loc8tor.com/gps

Rick

RF locators being discussed here http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1274173 in the $50 price range. I know there are a few hams monitoring this thread and APRS is good for locating, doing KMZ Google Earth 3D tracks etc. TX, GPS and DIY antenna for about $150 from http://www.byonics.com/mf and has other uses when not in your sailplane. 15mw but we use this on High Altitute Balloons (HAB) for near-space experiments and that is enough power, line of sight, for 120k feet and 100km down range with a good high gain antenna on the ground http://www.umsats.ca/satellite/satel...round-station/ with silloette of me 7 stories up . For a lost sailplane on the ground 2 or 3 miles away its a piece of cake. BUT....

Key is to take the trouble to install it before you loose it

Me earlier this year http://aprs.fi/#!mt=roadmap&z=11&cal...timerange=3600 Gotta zoom it to see it.

Originally Posted by rwelder

Well I am officially done with my RP. I guess it just wasn't meant to be.

I went out after lunch today to the hill I flew from last night. I launched it into a gentle breeze and up it went. I had to work to keep the climb rate steady and the wings level. Once it got up fairly high, it started to bank to the right. As it was completing the turn it started to bank steeper and steeper. I had full opposite aileron to try and correct the bank and also tried to pull up. It dove full power into the ground. Thankfully it didn't hurt anyone or anything else.

I expect I can strip the electronics and the engine might have survived but the rest is toast and I am not willing to buy the parts to rebuild it.

I think I would rather put them into a HK P2K, HK Spectre 1800 or R2H Passer X.

Thanks to all for trying to help me with the RP.

I agree with Radio Active. It is really unfortunate about your RP experience, but I hope you won't give up on electric sailplanes. The regular Radian is much easier to set up and fly and you have all the expensive parts in hand from your old RP. I have scale, UM,sport and 3d planes to choose from when I go flying and I never go w/o my Radian!

I have 3 different types of these locators, had 2 crashes, neither one the locator worked, properly installed. In the first crash Hobby King one worked perfect each start up, in crash and after never worked again, luckily my ESC beeps when not used for a while and I heard that! Was not damaged, radio was still on. Crash 2 , same type of locator more expensive not from hobby king, battery disconnected and of course not a sound. Found both planes without the locator working, lucky!
Biggest problem with sound locators is very poor range of the sound, especially in grass or corn field. Second is, in many crashes Battery gets ejected or disconnected from RX, so locator goes dead. Really need separate power for locator. GPS would be better if the range was sufficient, most of the dog/key locators do not have the range. Gliders fly high and far and can fly away for miles. I did see a very nice small GPS locator on a free flight model with 2mile range and 2 day battery power, the guy said to check free flight groups as they are available and no where near the ripoff price of those low quality, dog/key things. Have to do some investigation or try to find him again for more info. Lot of these also do not work well with 2.4 radios and can be a bear to setup to turn on if signal goes down.

Your friend is probalby talking about the Walston system. Very very popular among free flight and competition glider pilots. I use them in my gliders. I own one and I move it around.

$150 for the transmitter in the plane. Club owns the receiver, about $300.

Found one 2 miles away after it landed on a house.

The beepers have their place. They are cheap enough you can put them in the plane and forget it. No need to move them around.

Sound range is typically only 50 to 100 feet but that is often enough. In brush or tall grass or even on top of tall trees you can be within 20 feet but not be able to see it, but with a beeper you can hear it. Has worked for me many times.