Coach shows very low (wrong) average gliding speed #282
Labels
bug
Something isn't working
Comments
|
Not someone from WeGlide, but saw this and read through your report. Keep in mind that the speed shown on the graph is Groundspeed. At 10-13k you're also going to see true airspeeds that are ~20% higher (2%/1000ft) than your indicated. So TAS + a tailwind could put you at 100kts over the ground with 70ish kts indicated. Not knowing what your winds were, their number seems a bit low, but not completely out of the realm of possibility. I have felt like the numbers were generally a bit low as well, but the data probably tells a better story than my memory. |
|
Hi Morgan,
Thanks for the response. I do have TAS and GS side-by-side on my flight
computer and keep an eye on them mainly to sanity check the calculated wind
dir/speed. On the example glide, they were within a few kts with a
crosswind on that segment. I really think I'm flying fast enough - maybe
even too fast because it feels like I'm clawing back up into the lift band
too often. Since I end up slower compared to my peers, I'm doing something
wrong. On the other hand, WeGlide says ALL of my glide segments are too
slow and that just doesn't make sense to me since some are pushing deep
into the yellow only slowing to 90kts as I drop into lower altitude bands.
I'm in the middle of a local event with some fast pilots so I'll do some
comparisons. I'm also in the 18m nationals so should have plenty of
opportunities to learn more there. I do wish that WeGlide (and flight
computers) published the formulas used for their derived metrics.
thx, JJ
…On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Morgan Hall ***@***.***> wrote:
Not someone from WeGlide, but saw this and read through your report. Keep
in mind that the speed shown on the graph is Groundspeed. At 10-13k you're
also going to see true airspeeds that are ~20% higher (2%/1000ft) than your
indicated. So TAS + a tailwind could put you at 100kts over the ground with
70ish kts indicated. Not knowing what your winds were, their number seems a
bit low, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
I have felt like the numbers were generally a bit low as well, but the
data probably tells a better story than my memory.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#282 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPS7BAHXER3QBJ6RYMLZEQMMNAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZUGQYDGNBVG4>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Sounds like you've got reasonable data available real-time if you've got
the GS and TAS displayed. If you're using an LX 90X0, I also recommend the
GS - TAS infobox which gives you your headwind/tailwind component at a
faster update rate than their actual "HW/TW" box.
WeGlide is doing a pretty amazing job with the data that they have. The
main thing is that they don't have "puckerfactor" or "needtonotlandout"
settings. So they only know your polar data and your actual achieved climb
rates. This is usually why i'm "slow" according to the coach. Sure, I
stopped for 6 knots and flew MC4, but I also had 35 miles of unlandable
terrain under me.
As for going faster, the simple "no shit" answer is thermal less. You'll
find that the speed you fly between thermals is less of a predictor of
overall speed than the %thermal time on any given flight. Sounds like this
is where your own analysis is already taking you. John Cochrane has an
article on speed to fly with numbers run for an ASW-27 and MC4 dry is only
about 50kts/hr average speed if I remember right. Cruising at over 80, but
stopping to climb often means only 65% of the time is in cruise or whatever
the math works out to.
MC theory is an excellent tool, but often flying a bit slower will keep you
in the strongest lift band and allow you to skip climbs entirely.
Especially if you've got convergence or streeting types of energy lines
where you can fly 2-3x longer between needing a circling climb. If you are
finding yourself low and working 3kts to get back into the 6kts band above,
that's where changing your working band can help. Assuming the day/area is
predictable like that. Given that you're in AZ, I wouldn't be surprised if
the 6kts+ band is too far apart to reach at MC6. So you might be faster
flying MC4 so that you reach the next climb in the 6kts band. But WeGlide
will tell you that you are flying too slow because you flew MC4 and only
stopped for MC6+ climbs.
Maybe some day they can add thermal strength bands into the coach analysis.
But that is kind of like proving a negative. If you stay high, you'll
never show that the thermals weren't strong from the ground and you'll
still appear slow.
Anyhow, good luck at the contest. Comparing traces through the same task
and air is a great way to learn. So is asking the fast guys. Hopefully
everyone is open to sharing their technique.
Morgan
…On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 7:01 AM JohnCJ2 ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Morgan,
Thanks for the response. I do have TAS and GS side-by-side on my flight
computer and keep an eye on them mainly to sanity check the calculated
wind
dir/speed. On the example glide, they were within a few kts with a
crosswind on that segment. I really think I'm flying fast enough - maybe
even too fast because it feels like I'm clawing back up into the lift band
too often. Since I end up slower compared to my peers, I'm doing something
wrong. On the other hand, WeGlide says ALL of my glide segments are too
slow and that just doesn't make sense to me since some are pushing deep
into the yellow only slowing to 90kts as I drop into lower altitude bands.
I'm in the middle of a local event with some fast pilots so I'll do some
comparisons. I'm also in the 18m nationals so should have plenty of
opportunities to learn more there. I do wish that WeGlide (and flight
computers) published the formulas used for their derived metrics.
thx, JJ
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Morgan Hall ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Not someone from WeGlide, but saw this and read through your report.
Keep
> in mind that the speed shown on the graph is Groundspeed. At 10-13k
you're
> also going to see true airspeeds that are ~20% higher (2%/1000ft) than
your
> indicated. So TAS + a tailwind could put you at 100kts over the ground
with
> 70ish kts indicated. Not knowing what your winds were, their number
seems a
> bit low, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
>
> I have felt like the numbers were generally a bit low as well, but the
> data probably tells a better story than my memory.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#282 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPS7BAHXER3QBJ6RYMLZEQMMNAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZUGQYDGNBVG4>
> .
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#282 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHHKQMQV3GWAVBOIP7ZALZESE5JAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVGI4TKNJTGE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Great feedback, Morgan. Thank you!
I think you're right about weglide (and reality) in terms of using a pure
MC calculation. I definitely need to unlearn my hang gliding 'turn in
every thermal and top them out' past.
thx, JJ
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:48 AM Morgan Hall ***@***.***>
wrote:
… Sounds like you've got reasonable data available real-time if you've got
the GS and TAS displayed. If you're using an LX 90X0, I also recommend the
GS - TAS infobox which gives you your headwind/tailwind component at a
faster update rate than their actual "HW/TW" box.
WeGlide is doing a pretty amazing job with the data that they have. The
main thing is that they don't have "puckerfactor" or "needtonotlandout"
settings. So they only know your polar data and your actual achieved climb
rates. This is usually why i'm "slow" according to the coach. Sure, I
stopped for 6 knots and flew MC4, but I also had 35 miles of unlandable
terrain under me.
As for going faster, the simple "no shit" answer is thermal less. You'll
find that the speed you fly between thermals is less of a predictor of
overall speed than the %thermal time on any given flight. Sounds like this
is where your own analysis is already taking you. John Cochrane has an
article on speed to fly with numbers run for an ASW-27 and MC4 dry is only
about 50kts/hr average speed if I remember right. Cruising at over 80, but
stopping to climb often means only 65% of the time is in cruise or
whatever
the math works out to.
MC theory is an excellent tool, but often flying a bit slower will keep
you
in the strongest lift band and allow you to skip climbs entirely.
Especially if you've got convergence or streeting types of energy lines
where you can fly 2-3x longer between needing a circling climb. If you are
finding yourself low and working 3kts to get back into the 6kts band
above,
that's where changing your working band can help. Assuming the day/area is
predictable like that. Given that you're in AZ, I wouldn't be surprised if
the 6kts+ band is too far apart to reach at MC6. So you might be faster
flying MC4 so that you reach the next climb in the 6kts band. But WeGlide
will tell you that you are flying too slow because you flew MC4 and only
stopped for MC6+ climbs.
Maybe some day they can add thermal strength bands into the coach
analysis.
But that is kind of like proving a negative. If you stay high, you'll
never show that the thermals weren't strong from the ground and you'll
still appear slow.
Anyhow, good luck at the contest. Comparing traces through the same task
and air is a great way to learn. So is asking the fast guys. Hopefully
everyone is open to sharing their technique.
Morgan
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 7:01 AM JohnCJ2 ***@***.***> wrote:
> Hi Morgan,
>
> Thanks for the response. I do have TAS and GS side-by-side on my flight
> computer and keep an eye on them mainly to sanity check the calculated
> wind
> dir/speed. On the example glide, they were within a few kts with a
> crosswind on that segment. I really think I'm flying fast enough - maybe
> even too fast because it feels like I'm clawing back up into the lift
band
> too often. Since I end up slower compared to my peers, I'm doing
something
> wrong. On the other hand, WeGlide says ALL of my glide segments are too
> slow and that just doesn't make sense to me since some are pushing deep
> into the yellow only slowing to 90kts as I drop into lower altitude
bands.
> I'm in the middle of a local event with some fast pilots so I'll do some
> comparisons. I'm also in the 18m nationals so should have plenty of
> opportunities to learn more there. I do wish that WeGlide (and flight
> computers) published the formulas used for their derived metrics.
> thx, JJ
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Morgan Hall ***@***.***>
> wrote:
>
> > Not someone from WeGlide, but saw this and read through your report.
> Keep
> > in mind that the speed shown on the graph is Groundspeed. At 10-13k
> you're
> > also going to see true airspeeds that are ~20% higher (2%/1000ft) than
> your
> > indicated. So TAS + a tailwind could put you at 100kts over the ground
> with
> > 70ish kts indicated. Not knowing what your winds were, their number
> seems a
> > bit low, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
> >
> > I have felt like the numbers were generally a bit low as well, but the
> > data probably tells a better story than my memory.
> >
> > —
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <
> #282 (comment)>,
>
> > or unsubscribe
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPS7BAHXER3QBJ6RYMLZEQMMNAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZUGQYDGNBVG4>
>
> > .
> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
> > ***@***.***>
> >
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#282 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHHKQMQV3GWAVBOIP7ZALZESE5JAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVGI4TKNJTGE>
> .
> You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#282 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPW7SJVETOAMYXJBDCLZESRNXAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVGU4DINBSGI>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Classic HG moves. I too came from HG and had to unlearn take em all, top em
all.
…On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 21:29 JohnCJ2 ***@***.***> wrote:
Great feedback, Morgan. Thank you!
I think you're right about weglide (and reality) in terms of using a pure
MC calculation. I definitely need to unlearn my hang gliding 'turn in
every thermal and top them out' past.
thx, JJ
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:48 AM Morgan Hall ***@***.***>
wrote:
> Sounds like you've got reasonable data available real-time if you've got
> the GS and TAS displayed. If you're using an LX 90X0, I also recommend
the
> GS - TAS infobox which gives you your headwind/tailwind component at a
> faster update rate than their actual "HW/TW" box.
>
> WeGlide is doing a pretty amazing job with the data that they have. The
> main thing is that they don't have "puckerfactor" or "needtonotlandout"
> settings. So they only know your polar data and your actual achieved
climb
> rates. This is usually why i'm "slow" according to the coach. Sure, I
> stopped for 6 knots and flew MC4, but I also had 35 miles of unlandable
> terrain under me.
>
> As for going faster, the simple "no shit" answer is thermal less. You'll
> find that the speed you fly between thermals is less of a predictor of
> overall speed than the %thermal time on any given flight. Sounds like
this
> is where your own analysis is already taking you. John Cochrane has an
> article on speed to fly with numbers run for an ASW-27 and MC4 dry is
only
> about 50kts/hr average speed if I remember right. Cruising at over 80,
but
> stopping to climb often means only 65% of the time is in cruise or
> whatever
> the math works out to.
>
> MC theory is an excellent tool, but often flying a bit slower will keep
> you
> in the strongest lift band and allow you to skip climbs entirely.
> Especially if you've got convergence or streeting types of energy lines
> where you can fly 2-3x longer between needing a circling climb. If you
are
> finding yourself low and working 3kts to get back into the 6kts band
> above,
> that's where changing your working band can help. Assuming the day/area
is
> predictable like that. Given that you're in AZ, I wouldn't be surprised
if
> the 6kts+ band is too far apart to reach at MC6. So you might be faster
> flying MC4 so that you reach the next climb in the 6kts band. But
WeGlide
> will tell you that you are flying too slow because you flew MC4 and only
> stopped for MC6+ climbs.
>
> Maybe some day they can add thermal strength bands into the coach
> analysis.
> But that is kind of like proving a negative. If you stay high, you'll
> never show that the thermals weren't strong from the ground and you'll
> still appear slow.
>
> Anyhow, good luck at the contest. Comparing traces through the same task
> and air is a great way to learn. So is asking the fast guys. Hopefully
> everyone is open to sharing their technique.
>
> Morgan
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 7:01 AM JohnCJ2 ***@***.***> wrote:
>
> > Hi Morgan,
> >
> > Thanks for the response. I do have TAS and GS side-by-side on my
flight
> > computer and keep an eye on them mainly to sanity check the calculated
> > wind
> > dir/speed. On the example glide, they were within a few kts with a
> > crosswind on that segment. I really think I'm flying fast enough -
maybe
> > even too fast because it feels like I'm clawing back up into the lift
> band
> > too often. Since I end up slower compared to my peers, I'm doing
> something
> > wrong. On the other hand, WeGlide says ALL of my glide segments are
too
> > slow and that just doesn't make sense to me since some are pushing
deep
> > into the yellow only slowing to 90kts as I drop into lower altitude
> bands.
> > I'm in the middle of a local event with some fast pilots so I'll do
some
> > comparisons. I'm also in the 18m nationals so should have plenty of
> > opportunities to learn more there. I do wish that WeGlide (and flight
> > computers) published the formulas used for their derived metrics.
> > thx, JJ
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 10:59 PM Morgan Hall ***@***.***>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Not someone from WeGlide, but saw this and read through your report.
> > Keep
> > > in mind that the speed shown on the graph is Groundspeed. At 10-13k
> > you're
> > > also going to see true airspeeds that are ~20% higher (2%/1000ft)
than
> > your
> > > indicated. So TAS + a tailwind could put you at 100kts over the
ground
> > with
> > > 70ish kts indicated. Not knowing what your winds were, their number
> > seems a
> > > bit low, but not completely out of the realm of possibility.
> > >
> > > I have felt like the numbers were generally a bit low as well, but
the
> > > data probably tells a better story than my memory.
> > >
> > > —
> > > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > > <
> >
#282 (comment)>,
>
> >
> > > or unsubscribe
> > > <
> >
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPS7BAHXER3QBJ6RYMLZEQMMNAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZUGQYDGNBVG4>
>
> >
> > > .
> > > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
> > > ***@***.***>
> > >
> >
> > —
> > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> > <
> #282 (comment)>,
>
> > or unsubscribe
> > <
>
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHHKQMQV3GWAVBOIP7ZALZESE5JAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVGI4TKNJTGE>
>
> > .
> > You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
> > ***@***.***>
> >
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <
#282 (comment)>,
> or unsubscribe
> <
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/BIODHPW7SJVETOAMYXJBDCLZESRNXAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZVGU4DINBSGI>
> .
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
> ***@***.***>
>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#282 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHHKXTWCXADTSDD5JYPY3ZEVKTFAVCNFSM6AAAAABHTFKYQGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMZWGQ4TAOJUHE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The coach function shows consistently very low average IAS for my glide segments. The graph, however, shows an unlabeled speed value for each segment that seems to match my calculations.
To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:
Expected behavior
A reply with an explanation of my confusion or a response to correct this if it is a bug.
Screenshots
Attached
Device (please complete the following information):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: