Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC:

Re: Microlift gliders 10 Dec 2013 21:50 #508

BTW, a NICE little aircraft -- I finally got some time to take a look at it. The glider, won't meet FAR 103, but the motor-glider will! (242 Lb). Interestingly enough the wing-span is almost the same as the CD. While looking at the U-tube vid, I did happen to run across those darned jet-powered sailplanes.. OH my! I wish I were really really rich! I'd get me one of those!

--- On Fri, 2/10/12, 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: Microlift gliders
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Friday, February 10, 2012, 10:29 AM



Hi Rick,
My Alatus came from near Columbus, Ohio ironically.

I weighed 20 lbs more than the glider. I'm 185.

It was a beautiful piece of engineering that I am kicking myself for selling it.

The gentleman that bought it is adding the power pod. Mine was one of 3 in the U.S.

You are welcome for the link. That is my play list on my YouTube channel of video's I collected before buying the Alatus.

There are a couple graphlite rod tests of my landing gear on the channel as well if you are interested.

I have incorporated some Graphlite Rod into the plane I am building now. My landing gear is an experiment with the Rods.

There are video's of me drop testing my plane. The product is incredible. Each landing gear leg weighs just 4 oz. That's about
1/8th the weight of typical.

Here is a link to my channel. There are 29 video's. 2 on drop testing. www.youtube.com/user/schnka?ob=0

I think it would be simple to use the graphlite rods instead of wood for a complete airframe.

Regards,
Karl

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Rick Mullins wrote:
>
> Personally I don't have a problem at all discussing other designs here. There aren't that many people here actually building a CD, and I'm sure that most area here because they are interested in gliders that fit in the microlift category and how they compare. I went to all the trouble to make leading edge molds because there is a very good chance I will be building another CD, but I will use the experience from building this one, flying impressions after I have it done, and ideas from other designs like the Alatus to maybe make some kind of CD hybrid.
> Â
> Thanks for posting the link to the Alatus. I wasn't aware of that design.
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: KarlS <kschneider@...>
> To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 8:50 PM
> Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: Carbon Dragon structural limits
>
>
> Â
> Hi Steve,
> I am disappointed not to have decided to build the CD. What did you end up building if you do not mind me asking?
>
> With a super light tail assembly you would think the pilot almost has to be under the front part of the wing. Unless you forward sweep the wings.
>
> I owned an Alatus AL-12 for about 9 months. It had forward swept wings. I deeply regret selling the airplane. See

>
> One last thing here. I don't think this is the place to discuss other designs but I would like to say how much I like the Atos V series. To use that wing style in a different config is something I have pondered.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karl
>
> --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Steve Adkins wrote:
> >
> > My club had a Schleicher Ka-7 ... the rear seat had the pilot's head in between the wing nose sections. Not the best.
> > www.eastcarolinasoaring.org/images/MaySoaring050309_1.jpg
> > www.eastcarolinasoaring.org/images/MaySoaring050309_2.jpg
> >
> > I too struggled with ways to improve visibility. Before deciding to build something else, I settled on making the Carbon Dragon seat more recumbent so that the head was below the wing. I built a plans accurate mockup of the pilot pod using scrap lumber. The recumbent position required extending nose 3-inches. This change moved the pilot's center of gravity forward making a nose-heavy glider even more nose heavy.
> >
> > As for visibility when circling in thermals. I shared a thermal at Harris Hill, NY with Gary Osoba. He was in the prototype Carbon Dragon built by Jim Maupin (and team) and I was in a Schweizer 2-33. I was in a medium bank turn attempting to "core" the thermal. Gary was circling with hardly any bank at all (Note: in a regular glider, Gary will bank almost vertical if needed to core the thermal); thus, Gary's circle was much larger than my circle. Gary easily out climbed me in the weaker lift ... left the thermal headed north towards Elmira and was circling in the next thermal by the time I reached the top of the thermal we had shared. I gave up trying to follow Gary.
> >
> > Phil's idea was interesting ... but does the wing strength depend on a nose skin extending all the way to the root of the wing? I have seen this type of solution to visibility in a few high wing powered craft but they all had wing struts which greatly reduces the need for strength at the wing root as compared to a cantilevered wing.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > You've hit the nail on the head re the visibility issue - that was my strong impression when I looked at photos of the CD too. However, after a quick look at the plans a simple solution presented itself - already discussed here groups.yahoo.com/group/Carbondragonbuild...ndpilots/message/287. In a nutshell, cut away the leading edge and angle the nose of the root rib out at 45-50 degrees towards the tip of the second rib and replace with a lexan nose-rib and thin lexan sheet for the leading edge in that section. It should improve the pilot's peripheral vision significantly.
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> > Karl and guys,
> > We discussed the visibility in another thread, but I couldn't see very well up and back, which is where you need to look while you are circling in thermals. My preference would be a mid-wing with my eyeline above the top of the wing and the ability to move my head to look back under the wing. I also want my eyeline forward of the leading edge at the root. Improved visibility would greatly improve the Carbon Dragon flying experience for me.
> >
> > ... snip ....
> >
> > After towing operations are developed, I plan on rolling into the design, build, test and operation of an ultralight sailplane. I won't talk too much about this on this group, since the subject is the Carbon Dragon, but the goal will be similar to the Carbon Dragon, only with the added stipulation that it will be designed to be built from plans and be adequate for folks up to 242 pounds (110 kg).
> >
> > The Archaeopteryx looks very nice, but has a similar configuration as the Carbon Dragon. It appears that the visibility is better than the CD, but not nearly as good as a conventional sailplane. The cost is also stratospheric.
> > ... snip ...
> >
> > Dan

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1