NASA testing

[Ron Gleason]

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html

Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more details?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html
>
> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more details?

27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/ed14-0320-034.jpg

[jfitch]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 6:48:21 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html
>
> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more details?

It looks like a model of some SH fuselages. The article is a little confusing, but this is a scale RC model, built with model parts. The second (below the fold) picture makes it clearer.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:17 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
>> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html
>>
>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
>> details?
>
> 27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!
>
> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/
ed14-0320-034.jpg

Surely the main question is why did they bother?

Scaled Composites seem to have the problem of designing and building this
type of aircraft pretty much cracked, and already carrying quite large
rockets, so why not buy one or two from them?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Alan Saunders]

At 15:49 23 April 2017, jfitch wrote:
>On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 6:48:21 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>>
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html
>>
>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
>details?
>
>It looks like a model of some SH fuselages. The article is a little
>confusing, but this is a scale RC model, built with model parts. The
second
>(below the fold) picture makes it clearer.
>
Google "1/3 scale model Twin Ventus Glider".

[Dan Marotta]

On 4/23/2017 10:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:17 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/TGALS_first_flight.html
>>>
>>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
>>> details?
>> 27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!
>>
>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/
> ed14-0320-034.jpg
>
> Surely the main question is why did they bother?
>
> Scaled Composites seem to have the problem of designing and building this
> type of aircraft pretty much cracked, and already carrying quite large
> rockets, so why not buy one or two from them?

Not Invented Here?


>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:40:30 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> On 4/23/2017 10:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:17 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
>>>> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/
TGALS_first_flight.html
>>>>
>>>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
>>>> details?
>>> 27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!
>>>
>>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/
>> ed14-0320-034.jpg
>>
>> Surely the main question is why did they bother?
>>
>> Scaled Composites seem to have the problem of designing and building
>> this type of aircraft pretty much cracked, and already carrying quite
>> large rockets, so why not buy one or two from them?
>
> Not Invented Here?
>
I wondered if that might be it. My guess is that NIH plus at least one
of the project bosses obviously being a keen RC flyer, is a reasonable
explanation. The link Bruce posted makes the RC connection clear.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 3:50:47 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:40:30 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
> > On 4/23/2017 10:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:17 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
> >>>> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/
> TGALS_first_flight.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
> >>>> details?
> >>> 27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!
> >>>
> >>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/
> >> ed14-0320-034.jpg
> >>
> >> Surely the main question is why did they bother?
> >>
> >> Scaled Composites seem to have the problem of designing and building
> >> this type of aircraft pretty much cracked, and already carrying quite
> >> large rockets, so why not buy one or two from them?
> >
> > Not Invented Here?
> >
> I wondered if that might be it. My guess is that NIH plus at least one
> of the project bosses obviously being a keen RC flyer, is a reasonable
> explanation. The link Bruce posted makes the RC connection clear.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

I think it's that it's really a lot cheaper to build something that's derived from production aircraft than starting with a new design that's 100% purpose-built. There are a number of NASA, commercial and military projects looking at using production gliders as a starting point - particularly for proof-of-concept. After all, modern gliders are pretty well optimized aerodynamically...and dirt cheap compared to the alternatives.

Off-the-shelf RC gliders are even cheaper and give you at least some insight into the flight behavior of the gliders they are patterned after.

Here's a link to an interesting series of videos describing the logic behind the project.

http://www.amaflightschool.org/video/nasas-jerry-budd-tow-glider-air-launch-concept

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Craig Funston]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 2:41:21 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 3:50:47 PM UTC-7, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:40:30 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/23/2017 10:05 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 07:38:17 -0700, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 4:48:21 PM UTC+3, Ron Gleason wrote:
> > >>>> https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/Features/
> > TGALS_first_flight.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges. Anyone know more
> > >>>> details?
> > >>> 27 foot (8.2m) wingspan, even with two joined together!
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/
> > >> ed14-0320-034.jpg
> > >>
> > >> Surely the main question is why did they bother?
> > >>
> > >> Scaled Composites seem to have the problem of designing and building
> > >> this type of aircraft pretty much cracked, and already carrying quite
> > >> large rockets, so why not buy one or two from them?
> > >
> > > Not Invented Here?
> > >
> > I wondered if that might be it. My guess is that NIH plus at least one
> > of the project bosses obviously being a keen RC flyer, is a reasonable
> > explanation. The link Bruce posted makes the RC connection clear.
> >
> >
> > --
> > martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> > gregorie. | Essex, UK
> > org |
>
> I think it's that it's really a lot cheaper to build something that's derived from production aircraft than starting with a new design that's 100% purpose-built. There are a number of NASA, commercial and military projects looking at using production gliders as a starting point - particularly for proof-of-concept. After all, modern gliders are pretty well optimized aerodynamically...and dirt cheap compared to the alternatives.
>
> Off-the-shelf RC gliders are even cheaper and give you at least some insight into the flight behavior of the gliders they are patterned after.
>
> Here's a link to an interesting series of videos describing the logic behind the project.
>
> http://www.amaflightschool.org/video/nasas-jerry-budd-tow-glider-air-launch-concept
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, thanks for the link to the videos. Great stuff!

Craig Funston
7Q

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:04:17 -0700, Craig Funston wrote:

> Andy, thanks for the link to the videos. Great stuff!
>
Very interesting. Thats the first cost and feasibility analysis I've seen
for air-launching G2S systems.

I notice that the last entry on the main project site was dated 2015 so I
hope the project hasn't been proxmired by the latest round of NASA budget
cuts.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Bob Kuykendall]

> Looks like a SH fuselage with side canopy hinges...

Reminiscent of the time NASA used a full-scale replica of the Ventus fuselage for the (cancelled) APEX high-altitude drop test article. Thanks to which we got a trailer for 24-04.