I was specifically talking about the Diana project and the wing building technique that they are using -- it's a bit different and I haven't fully got a grasp on it. On one hand they say they are using a 'spar-less' design (whatever that is), but on the Axel there is, in fact a spar at the wing root attach, so I'm not quite sure what they mean by that expession. Additionally they are using that parabeam stuff, which is interesting, but I couldn't find any design allowables on it, so I'm not sure how you would calculate the strength, the weight or anything else... When I get a chance I'll drop them a line and see what kind of info I can get out of them.




Also, I'm looking at an Axel Word dock right now, and it lists the following:






Max toff weight: 185 [kg]

empty weight: 84 [kg]



VNE = 135 [km/h] [IAS]

Maneuvre speed VA = 100 [km/h] [IAS]

Gust speed = 95 [km/h] [IAS]

Towspeed = 100 [km/h] [IAS]

Winch speed = 91 [km/h] [IAS]

Stall speed VSO = 48 [km/h] [IAS]

G = + 4,5 , - 2,0



Pilot weight:

max – 96 kG (212 Lb) ,

min – 55 kG (121 Lb)




Wingspan
12,2 [m] 40

Lenght
5,85 [m] 19.2

Height
1,85 [m] 6.06

Wing chord
0,95 [m] 3.11

Airfoil
AXEL

Aspect ratio
13,67

Elevator span
2,5 [m] 8.2

Weight to m2 at 185 kg
16,99 [kg/m2] 3.4 Lb/ft 2






Wing area
10,89 [m2] 128 ft2

Elevator area
1,485 [m2] 15.7

Keel area
0,500 [m2] 5.4

Rudder area ?
0,540[m2] 5.8






Empty mass
89 [kg] 196 Lb

Max flight mass
185 [kg] 408 Lb

useful mass
96 [kg] 212 Lb






There is no mention of a self launch capability, nor does it appear in any of the pictures... The only listing of 55 Kg, is the minimum pilot eight. So, details are still sketchy... I still doubt the 55 Kg total weight for glider only... But who knows. I think ther wing attach method is actually a bit clever!

Kenny











--- On Wed, 2/22/12, KarlS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


From: KarlS <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CD II
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012, 7:05 AM



Hi Kenny,
I see two options.
Spread the attach points over a longer area or eliminate the attach points by using a 3 piece wing.

I have had some discussion with Dieter Reich the designer of the ULF-1. He agreed a 3 piece wing is a better solution which eliminates the heavy attach hardware.

Dieter is a brilliant man. He was chief engineer on a project that the Navy called his plane Tomcat I believe. At the time he had designed the faster aircraft on the planet and as a pet project the lightest foot launched sailplane ever. Talk about both ends of the spectrum..

Karl

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen wrote:
>
> I dropped a line over at plan builder to confirm the weight and ask him whether he plans on making a kit or plans available.  I think what he's done is to go spar-less and put the weight in the skins -- that might not be such a bad idea.  Two plies outside, and one on the inside with some kind of a sandwich structure might carry most of the loads -- you'd have to figure out how to get the load from the attach points into the rest of the wing though... thinking
>
> --- On Tue, 2/21/12, KarlS <kschneider@...> wrote:
>
> From: KarlS <kschneider@...>
> Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CD II
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 9:13 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kenny it appears it is 82kg with Motor and Prop!
>
>
>
> www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/soarin...omebuilt-glider.html
>
>
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen wrote:
>
> >
>
> > there apear to be conflicting weight numbers -- I saw 80 Kg somewhere -- I don't think you can do it for 55 KG -- If you can -- I'm in!