- Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:09 pm
#402348
Red-I have not got that much airtime on my Fledge and have been following your posts with a good deal of welcome. What you express as attributes you liked about your Fledge have been noted and appreciated. The spiral stability is now on the agenda. I always had a negative attitude about too much spiral stability- it comes from 2 axis RC's of mine. I hate it when I am off in co-ordination of a turn and before I can compensate-- the glider rolls out of the turn.
As you understand the planned future of the craft has me looking at reducing the dihedral so the craft is has less crosswind taxi rollover risk. I understand that with spoilerons I'll still need weight shift and some dihedral or the roll rate will be too slow. You also understand that wingletts will exacerbate cross wind taxi rollover. I know I'm preaching to the choir about this with you.
I also wish to do as little re-engineering as possible. The hang glider will be back engineered from the Quicksilver MX. The leading edge, the diagonal struts, the tail struts, the rudder, all MX. The compression struts will be ready to outer sleeve as the crafts weight increases and the root tube will be 1 and 5/8ths with saddles so all the mounting points are the same as when I switch to 2 inch square tube latter. I don't want to bastardize a hang glider into a motor glider, rather start with the proven motorized Quicksilver and back engineer to the hang glider. As for your comments on the Fledge and more, keep it up I'm listening more than you might think I am.
Raquo-I am only planning on testing my sail innovations and will run about 40 square foot of wing area. My racks will be centered on the wagons support pillars. The racks are good for more than 200 pounds so I'll be able to go 2x stall speed with max angle of attack, faster at lower angles. The racks will be between the wagons axles and biased toward the front. To static check your wings load resitance most home-builders use the sand bag method. Because I'm back engineering from a Quicksilver that is designed to have a gross weight of 500 pounds plus, and my hang glider phase craft will be about 240 pounds gross-more than 10 g's of strenght -more than enough.
As you understand the planned future of the craft has me looking at reducing the dihedral so the craft is has less crosswind taxi rollover risk. I understand that with spoilerons I'll still need weight shift and some dihedral or the roll rate will be too slow. You also understand that wingletts will exacerbate cross wind taxi rollover. I know I'm preaching to the choir about this with you.
I also wish to do as little re-engineering as possible. The hang glider will be back engineered from the Quicksilver MX. The leading edge, the diagonal struts, the tail struts, the rudder, all MX. The compression struts will be ready to outer sleeve as the crafts weight increases and the root tube will be 1 and 5/8ths with saddles so all the mounting points are the same as when I switch to 2 inch square tube latter. I don't want to bastardize a hang glider into a motor glider, rather start with the proven motorized Quicksilver and back engineer to the hang glider. As for your comments on the Fledge and more, keep it up I'm listening more than you might think I am.
Raquo-I am only planning on testing my sail innovations and will run about 40 square foot of wing area. My racks will be centered on the wagons support pillars. The racks are good for more than 200 pounds so I'll be able to go 2x stall speed with max angle of attack, faster at lower angles. The racks will be between the wagons axles and biased toward the front. To static check your wings load resitance most home-builders use the sand bag method. Because I'm back engineering from a Quicksilver that is designed to have a gross weight of 500 pounds plus, and my hang glider phase craft will be about 240 pounds gross-more than 10 g's of strenght -more than enough.