New Glider Dream Elon Musk Flow

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..

What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.

We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.

If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?

18/21 or 15/18 meters

Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?

Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?

Pedestal mounted wing?

[[email protected]]

Rotomolded plastic 1-26s in original orange color. Seriously it would be cool if someday 3D printing/plastic sticking together technology made gliders that are still awesome but significantly less expensive.
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:58:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> ...3D printing/plastic sticking together technology

In terms of cost per unit mass, 3D printing is actually pretty pricy. Note that Toyota isn't exactly 3D printing Camrys. I use it for one or two parts where the benefits outweigh the costs. I'm also looking at using 3D printed molds for some parts.

In terms of cost per unit strength or stiffness, 3D printing ranges from mediocre to terrible. Once they can reliably cost-effectively 3D print 1" long carbon fibers, it will be time to take notice.

The technologies to watch for in glider manufacture are robot tow, tape, and swath placement for conventional composite materials (carbon, aramid, fiberglass). We'd use them to supplement and eventually replace the kinds of skilled labor it takes to make large composite moldings like fuselages and wing skins.

One thing I could really use is an overhead gantry robot that could:

* Lay down and saturate carbon fiber for a wing skin or fuselage shell. It would scan the shape of the mold and distribute and cut off the swaths accordingly, and also saturate the carbon with epoxy. It would also react appropriately to minor irregularities in the placement of the plies or core foam panels.

* Cut and bevel sandwich core foam panels.

* Distribute beads of epoxy paste for bonding operations (fuselage and wing clousures).

* Locate and drill alignment holes

If I had one of those, I could really ramp up production and lower prices. It would also make it much easier to demonstrate compliance with ASTM standards, so I could justify the expense of a certification program and sell finished, flyable S-LSA gliders.

--Bob K.

[Ross[_3_]]

Bob, just a thought. Get someone to scan your moulds, create a set of files to have your plies cut to, order them in pre-preg, pre cut and simply lay it up, bag it and cook it. The right pre-preg systems have a long outlife so you shouldn’t have too many issues with time

Just a thought.
(We do it all in house)

[ND]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

•if you want hyper elon musk futuristic, i've had some interesting ideas that seem totally and completely unfeasable, but then... future technology can surprise you. some of mine are purely imaginative, and not all that practical

First idea:
on-board super high powered de-humidifier. you could dump your ballast just before a climb, and then have the dehumidifier pull water out of the air and replenish water ballast for the next cruise during the climb.

or maybe that's too insanely fast to condense 30 gallons of water out of thin air. i don't know what am i, a scientist? but: suppose you could do it in a half hour rather than a few minutes. that would be perfect for longer record flights where its weak early or late in the day, or helping you get heavy again after dumping during a save.

•Second idea:
telescoping wings. wings that could telescope out to have a higher aspect ratio at the push of a button for long glides or weak weather, and telescope back in to make a lower span, higher wing loading when things are fast. really dynamic flights using many types of lift could benefit from the glider being able to shift gears too. i also thought about a glider that could have its wings sweepback a little sort of like an F-14. wonder how that would work with really fast flight to reduce drag, et cet.

•Smart flaps: automated flaps that make minor adjustments to keep optimal angle of attack

•also, these flaps:

http://www.flxsys.com/flexfoil/

This is something i envisioned for gliders and then i stumbled upon it and realized someone is already working on this! besides eliminating gap seals, drag from gap seals, and improving laminar flow in the aft part of an airfoil, it could be used to modify the airfoil shape for slow and fast flight..


•i always thought it would be cool if there was a glider with Fly-by wire, for very thin wings. the Nixus project is already doing this, so that's cool!
https://www.facebook.com/NixusProject/videos/1803258876640913/

•FES where the prop sits flush in a garage on the fuselage like the more advanced bugwipers do.

•gliders with enough battery power (this one is more battery technology related, enter elon musk) to run a cockpit heater for winter, or high altitude flights flights.

[ND]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 3:36:54 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
> >
> > What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
> >
> > We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
> >
> > If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
> >
> > 18/21 or 15/18 meters
> >
> > Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
> >
> > Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
> >
> > Pedestal mounted wing?
>
> •if you want hyper elon musk futuristic, i've had some interesting ideas that seem totally and completely unfeasable, but then... future technology can surprise you. some of mine are purely imaginative, and not all that practical
>
> First idea:
> on-board super high powered de-humidifier. you could dump your ballast just before a climb, and then have the dehumidifier pull water out of the air and replenish water ballast for the next cruise during the climb.
>
> or maybe that's too insanely fast to condense 30 gallons of water out of thin air. i don't know what am i, a scientist? but: suppose you could do it in a half hour rather than a few minutes. that would be perfect for longer record flights where its weak early or late in the day, or helping you get heavy again after dumping during a save.
>
> •Second idea:
> telescoping wings. wings that could telescope out to have a higher aspect ratio at the push of a button for long glides or weak weather, and telescope back in to make a lower span, higher wing loading when things are fast. really dynamic flights using many types of lift could benefit from the glider being able to shift gears too. i also thought about a glider that could have its wings sweepback a little sort of like an F-14. wonder how that would work with really fast flight to reduce drag, et cet.
>
> •Smart flaps: automated flaps that make minor adjustments to keep optimal angle of attack
>
> •also, these flaps:
>
> http://www.flxsys.com/flexfoil/
>
> This is something i envisioned for gliders and then i stumbled upon it and realized someone is already working on this! besides eliminating gap seals, drag from gap seals, and improving laminar flow in the aft part of an airfoil, it could be used to modify the airfoil shape for slow and fast flight.
>
>
> •i always thought it would be cool if there was a glider with Fly-by wire, for very thin wings. the Nixus project is already doing this, so that's cool!
> https://www.facebook.com/NixusProject/videos/1803258876640913/
>
> •FES where the prop sits flush in a garage on the fuselage like the more advanced bugwipers do.
>
> •gliders with enough battery power (this one is more battery technology related, enter elon musk) to run a cockpit heater for winter, or high altitude flights flights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=110&v=9ZpAHxMj5lU

[Paul Agnew]

Pre-fabricated, modular, bolt-on replacement tail booms for Grob 103s and other ships that immediately lose their useful load with a tailboom repair.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.

I think, the most original thought was Diana 2 sparless wing, that allowed the highest wing loading range of any sailplane.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Why has that technology not been used in other gliders?


On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:57:15 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>
> > We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> I think, the most original thought was Diana 2 sparless wing, that allowed the highest wing loading range of any sailplane.

[Ben Coleman]

Robotic paint/gelcoat removal and reprofiling.

Cheers Ben

[WB]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 8:08:12 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Why has that technology not been used in other gliders?
>
>
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:57:15 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >
> > > We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
> >
> > I think, the most original thought was Diana 2 sparless wing, that allowed the highest wing loading range of any sailplane.

Damage intolerant structure. Difficult to repair if damaged.

[Tony[_5_]]

Foka 4 and SH-1 also have "Sparless" Wings.

High wings like the JS-3 were pretty standard up through the Ka-6

What's old is new again

[Whiskey Charlie]

Plaster all surfaces of a 1-26 with solar panels and equip with electric sustainer. Give it to Daniel Sazhin and see how long he can stay aloft...
:D

[SoaringXCellence]

And telescoping wings were done in the 70's (Lookup FS-29), as well as the extending TE to change area and camber (FK3 and Sigma)http://www.betsybyars.com/guy/soaring_symposia/70-sigma.html

Mechanics on both of them created quite a workload for the pilot.

By the time the configuration change was complete, the glider had sailed far beyond the thermal.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

Pedestal -- Look at the Lo-150 (& Lo-100 aerobatic) sailplane. The fuselage at the rear spar is so narrow, one wing connects to the fuselage and the second connects to a fitting on the first wing. Again, like Tony said, not a new concept...

[Bret Hess]

Thanks for sharing those Sigma details! Fascinating.

[Bret Hess]

Time to start asking for biodegradable gliders. Gelcoat is a major step in that direction but we have a long way to go.

[Michael Opitz]

>> Pedestal mounted wing?
>
>Pedestal -- Look at the Lo-150 (& Lo-100 aerobatic) sailplane. The
fuselage
>at the rear spar is so narrow, one wing connects to the fuselage and
the
>second connects to a fitting on the first wing. Again, like Tony said,
not
>a new concept...

If you are looking back, you may as well look at the German gliders
of the 1930's. Most had high wings, and some were pedestal
mounted.

Also, for camber changing flaps, IIRC, the SB-11 which Reichman
used to win the 1978 15m WGC had them too.

RO

[[email protected]]

Time to start asking for biodegradable gliders. Gelcoat is a major step in that direction but we have a long way to go

Biodegradable gliders? Uhh- I guess we could go back to wood.

[john firth]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

Regarding the Std Austria SH1, I question the "sparless" statement;
it had a rather massive wooden spar with steel caps at the root,
coupled by large pins, driven into place by captive RH and LH screws.
It was close to best 15m ship at the time, thanks to the new Eppler 266
airfoil and the use of fibreglass over the playwood wing skin; it would outclimb the vaunted Sisu and outrun the K6 E.
I flew one to 4th place in the 1965 US Nats in Adrian.

cheers

John Firth Ottawa.

[Tony[_5_]]

John,

Certainly I am familiar with the carrythrough you mention on the SH-1, but my understanding is that massive structure only continues a short distance into the wing and then the load is transferred to a bunch of longitudinal stringers. The Foka 4 has a very similar arrangement.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Maybe a bit of inspiration would help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_kfM-BmVzQ

Jonkers, S-H and Dianna have all come out with new designs. There is another manufacturer rumored to to working on updating their 13 year old design of the ASG-29, at least that is the rumblings on RAS. What cool stuff woud you like to see? What happened to the technology BLR of the Scimitar? Dianna 2 was very innovative and arguably the best 15 meter glider. Jonkers kind of shook things up with the JS-3 (very small wing area). What do you want in the next new glider on the market?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The Nexus is being built with fly by wire and automatic flaps. As was pointed out above the SB-11 won the 1978 WGC, and that was a very radical design. Let imaginations run.

I would love automatic flaps in a new bird. I would alos like different manufacturing to allow for lighter empty weight, helps if you fly a sustainer.

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>

[WB]

>
> I would love automatic flaps in a new bird. I would alos like different manufacturing to allow for lighter empty weight, helps if you fly a sustainer.
>



What was the deal with the automatic flaps on the Duckhawk? Was that ever made to work at all?

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:11:43 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Foka 4 and SH-1 also have "Sparless" Wings.

You are right but you can't really compare these designs with Diana 2. These early designs had very light wing loading comparing to the massive wing loading allowed in Diana 2.

[Howard Banks]

Wing warping -- end of those gaps -- if nobody has said it already.


At 19:38 10 February 2018, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:11:43 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>> Foka 4 and SH-1 also have "Sparless" Wings.
>
>You are right but you can't really compare these designs with Diana 2.
>These early designs had very light wing loading comparing to the
massive
>wing loading allowed in Diana 2.
>

[[email protected]]

W dniu piątek, 9 lutego 2018 19:31:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Jonathan St. Cloud napisał:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

VTOL glider

[Daniel Sazhin[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 6:10:28 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 9 lutego 2018 19:31:46 UTC+1 użytkownik Jonathan St. Cloud napisał:
> > Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
> >
> > What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
> >
> > We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
> >
> > If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
> >
> > 18/21 or 15/18 meters
> >
> > Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
> >
> > Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
> >
> > Pedestal mounted wing?
>
> VTOL glider

I would love to see how the air is actually flowing around me.

Be it within a wingspan, or a thermal miles away.

All the best,
Daniel

[Daniel Sazhin[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 2:13:25 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> >
> > I would love automatic flaps in a new bird. I would alos like different manufacturing to allow for lighter empty weight, helps if you fly a sustainer.
> >
>
>
>
> What was the deal with the automatic flaps on the Duckhawk? Was that ever made to work at all?

Yep, they definitely work!

All the best,
Daniel

[Craig Funston[_3_]]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 3:18:49 PM UTC-8, Daniel Sazhin wrote:
> On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 2:13:25 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> > >
> > > I would love automatic flaps in a new bird. I would alos like different manufacturing to allow for lighter empty weight, helps if you fly a sustainer.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > What was the deal with the automatic flaps on the Duckhawk? Was that ever made to work at all?
>
> Yep, they definitely work!
>
> All the best,
> Daniel

Active boundary layer control, warping (non-hinged) control surfaces, auto-flaps.

Craig

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 22:44:03 +0000, Howard Banks >
wrote:

>Wing warping -- end of those gaps -- if nobody has said it already.
>
>

The Open class Jantar 2 in the late 70's had a version of this, with
camber changing flaps that have no hinge. The deflection is controlled
by deflection of the continuous upper wing surface...no upper surface
gaps.

Bob

[Michael Opitz]

At 22:44 10 February 2018, Howard Banks wrote:
>Wing warping -- end of those gaps -- if nobody has said it already.
>
>
>At 19:38 10 February 2018, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>>On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:11:43 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>>> Foka 4 and SH-1 also have "Sparless" Wings.
>>
>>You are right but you can't really compare these designs with Diana
2.
>>These early designs had very light wing loading comparing to the
>massive
>>wing loading allowed in Diana 2.
>>
>
E.G. Haase had that on his HKS 3 which he won the WGC in 1958
with. The production version SHK had ailerons though.. The
Wright brothers had that on their designs and patented it, so
Glenn Curtis came up with ailerons, which resulted in a huge
lawsuit.

RO

[RW[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 2:13:25 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> >
> > I would love automatic flaps in a new bird. I would alos like different manufacturing to allow for lighter empty weight, helps if you fly a sustainer.
> >
>
>
>
> What was the deal with the automatic flaps on the Duckhawk? Was that ever made to work at all?

Pls. no automatic flaps yet !
If we agree : older flappers being not to today's standards( flaps not very effective);
All new to flaps pilots want automatic flaps.I was one of them. But...
Flaps have to be set before I enter specific airmass(rising, still or falling).
Same like my speed to fly has to be set before I enter specific air mass.
Chasing is counter productive.I do not try to follow my Speed To Fly computer. I have to predict and set.Then I could tap myself on the shoulder watching my STF computer if 10 sec ago I was wright.What ever it says , its history, and I should not try to change it.So its useless.
So I bet and try to cash in.
If I loose, I learn for next change and adjust my predictions.
I loose very little if I go in bit too fast conig.
I never predict perfect and every , even slow conig change costs me energy loss.
So usual winners like KS , bet on sinking airmasses and plows constant high speed 75-85 in Duo( even if there was little lift in between) to predicted good air mass under far away Cu or blue gaggle.
I can get same fast and little higher by betting on little lift in between clouds, wisps, blue thermalers and have correct speed and flaps ready ahead..
In cruising : more config changes = more loses, so if I'm not sure, I'm better off using plowing little too fast config.East coast 92kts in Arcus,

If I win the bet with myself, I do same predictions in next airmass.
With speed to fly and flaps setting , I have to be always ahead with predictions.
So "fly by wire" like Nixus : YES, "automatic flaps" : NOT YET,only for newbies, till we have a system predicting airmass at least 0.3 mile ahead like LIDAR.
Ryszard

[[email protected]]

I drive a car with a manual gearbox - and would never trade it for an automatic gearbox car. The same with my glider flaps....

[krasw]

All gliders should be made of wood.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I would like the canopy to be a HUD. Traffic marked by green yellow or red triangles depending on range and threat level. Vario, Air Mass (blue dot for Butterfly users), airspeed altitude, task info.

Oh and tappered wing pins

[Kiwi User]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:36:15 -0800, krasw wrote:

> All gliders should be made of wood.

I'd settle for new-build Std Libelles with a revised, safety cockpit
structure.

[[email protected]]

Automatic changes to wing span is already being tested:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/feature/nasa-tests-new-alloy-to-fold-wings-in-flight.html

Dan
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 3:36:54 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
> >
> > What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
> >
> > We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
> >
> > If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
> >
> > 18/21 or 15/18 meters
> >
> > Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
> >
> > Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
> >
> > Pedestal mounted wing?
>
> •if you want hyper elon musk futuristic, i've had some interesting ideas that seem totally and completely unfeasable, but then... future technology can surprise you. some of mine are purely imaginative, and not all that practical
>
> First idea:
> on-board super high powered de-humidifier. you could dump your ballast just before a climb, and then have the dehumidifier pull water out of the air and replenish water ballast for the next cruise during the climb.
>
> or maybe that's too insanely fast to condense 30 gallons of water out of thin air. i don't know what am i, a scientist? but: suppose you could do it in a half hour rather than a few minutes. that would be perfect for longer record flights where its weak early or late in the day, or helping you get heavy again after dumping during a save.
>
> •Second idea:
> telescoping wings. wings that could telescope out to have a higher aspect ratio at the push of a button for long glides or weak weather, and telescope back in to make a lower span, higher wing loading when things are fast. really dynamic flights using many types of lift could benefit from the glider being able to shift gears too. i also thought about a glider that could have its wings sweepback a little sort of like an F-14. wonder how that would work with really fast flight to reduce drag, et cet.
>
> •Smart flaps: automated flaps that make minor adjustments to keep optimal angle of attack
>
> •also, these flaps:
>
> http://www.flxsys.com/flexfoil/
>
> This is something i envisioned for gliders and then i stumbled upon it and realized someone is already working on this! besides eliminating gap seals, drag from gap seals, and improving laminar flow in the aft part of an airfoil, it could be used to modify the airfoil shape for slow and fast flight.
>
>
> •i always thought it would be cool if there was a glider with Fly-by wire, for very thin wings. the Nixus project is already doing this, so that's cool!
> https://www.facebook.com/NixusProject/videos/1803258876640913/
>
> •FES where the prop sits flush in a garage on the fuselage like the more advanced bugwipers do.
>
> •gliders with enough battery power (this one is more battery technology related, enter elon musk) to run a cockpit heater for winter, or high altitude flights flights.

[krasw]

On Sunday, 11 February 2018 18:10:18 UTC+2, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:36:15 -0800, krasw wrote:
>
> > All gliders should be made of wood.
>
> I'd settle for new-build Std Libelles with a revised, safety cockpit
> structure.

If you crash glider, you will arrive at accident scene quarter inch after your glider structure. No safety cockpit will make fatal crashes survivable. If you want to improve safety rocket parachute is way to go. Or fly-by-wire control system that prevents pilot to do anything stupid.

[[email protected]]

> First idea:
> on-board super high powered de-humidifier. you could dump your ballast just before a climb, and then have the dehumidifier pull water out of the air and replenish water ballast for the next cruise during the climb.
>
> or maybe that's too insanely fast to condense 30 gallons of water out of thin air.

I worked on an experimental "Water From Air" project a few years ago designed for arid climates (think Afghanistan.) The Mil-Spec called for something that could produce 500 gallons of potable water in 24 hours on 100 gallons of diesel (or jet fuel, JP4, Jet-A etc.) Other specs defined the climate as around 90 degrees F and less than 20% relative humidity.

The machine met the specs, and worked pretty well. It was also eight feet high, 16 feet long and eight feet wide. Weighed around 10,000 lbs. if I remember correctly. Ran on a CAT Diesel generator and made enough noise to wake the dead.
It was designed to fit through a C-130 rear cargo hatch and ramp. It did, with an inch or so of clearance.

So, that's 50 gallons in 2.4 hours on 10 gallons of fuel. Want to buy it? I can probably get you a deal, if the Army hasn't destroyed it yet.

[[email protected]]

How about one that flys backwards?

A canard gives lift instead of the horizontal stab pushing the tail down.

Also gives a nice high place to put the FES.

Also might put more crush space in front of the pilot.

[Kiwi User]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 09:54:40 -0800, krasw wrote:

> On Sunday, 11 February 2018 18:10:18 UTC+2, Kiwi User wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 06:36:15 -0800, krasw wrote:
>>
>> > All gliders should be made of wood.
>>
>> I'd settle for new-build Std Libelles with a revised, safety cockpit
>> structure.
>
> If you crash glider, you will arrive at accident scene quarter inch
> after your glider structure. No safety cockpit will make fatal crashes
> survivable.
>
Sure, but the cockpit structure Schleicher introduced with the ASW-24 was
a big improvement on previous ones for pilot survivability. One of the
competition pilots in my club walked away from an almost totalled ASW-28
and reckons she'd have been a lot worse off in any earlier generation
cockpit.

> Or fly-by-wire control system that prevents pilot to do anything stupid.
>
I'm somewhat unconvinced about that. Watch the AA pilot lecture here:
https://vimeo.com/159496346


--

[Kiwi User]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:52:02 -0800, stu857xx wrote:

> How about one that flys backwards?
>
> A canard gives lift instead of the horizontal stab pushing the tail
> down.
>
It's been tried a few times in the competition Free Flight model building
world. Its easy to to make them fly quite well. I lost one, a 27" McCanard
with a TeeDee .010 on it, upward in a thermal. I remember it was quite
easy to trim, but had no d/t provision on the plan so I hadn't fitted
one: hence it climbing several hundred feet on the glide and disapearing
over a hill.

Doug Joyce got into the US F1C team with a set of canard models but,
whoile the climb was good, they didn't glide as well as conventional
layout models. The problem is that the main lifting surface has to
operate at a lower AOA than the foreplane because the latter MUST stall
first for the aircraft to be stable. This means that in almost all cases
the mainplane will be operating at a less than optimal AOA.


--

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Agreed, I can't speak for other MFR's, but in the ASx line since the -24, it's about as good as you can get without being in a sorta newer metal ship (like a 1-35).
I've been to a couple nose ins in some other brands of "glass gliders" and the cockpit "egg shells" about where the pilots knees are.
Thus, lower legs take the brunt of the impact.

Best bet, don't crash..........
Next best bet, metal glider.
Close behind, a ASx series in/after the -24.

As stated, not sure how others are doing in newer ship designs, I can only comment on AS.

[Dan Marotta]

See the Rutan Solitaire...

On 2/11/2018 11:52 AM, wrote:
> How about one that flys backwards?
>
> A canard gives lift instead of the horizontal stab pushing the tail down.
>
> Also gives a nice high place to put the FES.
>
> Also might put more crush space in front of the pilot.

--
Dan, 5J

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 12:52:05 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> How about one that flys backwards?
>
> A canard gives lift instead of the horizontal stab pushing the tail down.
>
> Also gives a nice high place to put the FES.
>
> Also might put more crush space in front of the pilot.

Burt Rutan tried it, and won an SSA contest with his design - mostly because he was Burt Rutan, not because the glider (Solitaire) was any good - because it basically sucked as a glider and was hideous to look at to boot.

Think about the aerodynamics of gliders a bit (in thermalling flight) and it's easy to see why.

And by the way, in cruise, my LS-6's tail isn't pushing the tail down, either - and with the CG adjusted correctly isn't pushing down much while thermalling either. Look up "decalage" if this doesn't make any sense.

Many of the ideas in this interesting thread have been tried: Telescoping wings, variable geometry, flexible skins (there are two Speed Astirs at our field with that feature!).

I'd like to see new, automated building procedures and materials that would result in stronger, lighter, more accurately profiled (and re-profiled, when needed) gliders. Active BLC could add a few percent performance, but why? Keep it simple, cost down, light enough for a small FES to get you home, and revamp the cockpit to better display all the data that is available (air data, weather, other aircraft, etc.). My idea panel would have one big display with everything on it for navigation, tactics and weather, and all performance data (airspeed, altitude, attitude, climb, AOA, STF, etc) projected on the visor of a lightweight, positionally tracked helmet. Directional audio so you can hear where the center of the thermal is. Icons showing where all the traffic (FLARM, ADS-B, PCAS) is in the vicinity, as well as navigation and thermal markers (where someone else just climbed).

Ballistic chutes of course, so comfort is increased.

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

Well, screw the helmet idea!Â* Who needs the weight?Â* If you're gonna go
that far, why not a set of light weight glasses with a bluetooth
receiver built in and all of your flight and collision avoidance
information focused at infinity through the glasses kinda like a HUD.Â*
Cockpit sensors would track the glasses and adjust the picture to the
viewing angle.

On 2/11/2018 1:01 PM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 12:52:05 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> How about one that flys backwards?
>>
>> A canard gives lift instead of the horizontal stab pushing the tail down.
>>
>> Also gives a nice high place to put the FES.
>>
>> Also might put more crush space in front of the pilot.
> Burt Rutan tried it, and won an SSA contest with his design - mostly because he was Burt Rutan, not because the glider (Solitaire) was any good - because it basically sucked as a glider and was hideous to look at to boot.
>
> Think about the aerodynamics of gliders a bit (in thermalling flight) and it's easy to see why.
>
> And by the way, in cruise, my LS-6's tail isn't pushing the tail down, either - and with the CG adjusted correctly isn't pushing down much while thermalling either. Look up "decalage" if this doesn't make any sense.
>
> Many of the ideas in this interesting thread have been tried: Telescoping wings, variable geometry, flexible skins (there are two Speed Astirs at our field with that feature!).
>
> I'd like to see new, automated building procedures and materials that would result in stronger, lighter, more accurately profiled (and re-profiled, when needed) gliders. Active BLC could add a few percent performance, but why? Keep it simple, cost down, light enough for a small FES to get you home, and revamp the cockpit to better display all the data that is available (air data, weather, other aircraft, etc.). My idea panel would have one big display with everything on it for navigation, tactics and weather, and all performance data (airspeed, altitude, attitude, climb, AOA, STF, etc) projected on the visor of a lightweight, positionally tracked helmet. Directional audio so you can hear where the center of the thermal is. Icons showing where all the traffic (FLARM, ADS-B, PCAS) is in the vicinity, as well as navigation and thermal markers (where someone else just climbed).
>
> Ballistic chutes of course, so comfort is increased.
>
> Kirk
> 66

--
Dan, 5J

[WB]

Can’t believe no one has suggested a robotic trailer that rigs/derigs for you.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 5:16:28 PM UTC-8, WB wrote:
> Can’t believe no one has suggested a robotic trailer that rigs/derigs for you.

I love it. Tesla has an automatic cable that pugs into car, just don't bend over near it!

[[email protected]]

Iscold, before designing Nixus, installed an autoflap system in my ASH30. It works very well, according to lift coeficient.
There is a video clip at Facebook Nixus page

Sergio

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 6:23:56 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Well, screw the helmet idea!Â* Who needs the weight?Â* If you're gonna go
> that far, why not a set of light weight glasses with a bluetooth
> receiver built in and all of your flight and collision avoidance
> information focused at infinity through the glasses kinda like a HUD.Â*
> Cockpit sensors would track the glasses and adjust the picture to the
> viewing angle.

Agree on the weight - what I'm thinking is more like a shell to hold the visor, electronics, mike, earphones, position sensor, cooling fan (why not?). More like a bike helmet than what we used to wear.

Glasses are OK but the field of view is limited - If you have tried a Hololens vs Oculus Rift you know what I mean. I would want the "HUD" to have at least 200 degrees of FOV so it would show traffic that I'm not looking directly at.

Anyway - all the cool sports wear helmets - chicks dig them!

Kirk
66

[WB]

On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 9:07:16 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 5:16:28 PM UTC-8, WB wrote:
> > Can’t believe no one has suggested a robotic trailer that rigs/derigs for you.
>
> I love it. Tesla has an automatic cable that pugs into car, just don't bend over near it!

Shocking!

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

My wish-list of what should be feasible today:
*Pylon or shoulder wing. The Mü31 or a bit more radical.
*Ditch Schempp-Hirth drag brakes. They are heavy, complex and require an enormous amount of man-hours to build. Use "crow-foot" flaps instead, a bit like the AS system, but much more extreme.
*3-piece wing that's mounted on top of the fuselage. By using such a mid-wing you can drastically reduce structural wing mass.
*Use the above to build a 10m2 wing with an AR of 45-50 that's no heavier that today's racing class. Easily do-able with a sparless center wing and pultrusions.
*FES, with a raised main gear so you can take-off.
*Reduced battery pack for the FES. Replace that with a 5 HP 4-stroke generator and you loose all drawbacks of FES.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 7:49:28 PM UTC-8, RW wrote:
> If we agree...

We do not.

--Bob K.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Race cars use spectra as part of the crash protection structure. Wonder why gliders have not copied from race cars?

[Tony[_5_]]

You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?

Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
>
> Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...

[WB]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 10:07:11 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> > You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
> >
> > Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...

Spectra is a brand name for aramid fibers better know by another name: kevlar. I believe kevlar is used in the cockpits of the "safety cockpit" Schleicher gliders and probably others. A mix of carbon/kevlar seems to be common in the seatpans of new gliders these days.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Interesting, as in sailing we have kevlar sails, but spectra lines.

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 8:40:38 PM UTC-8, WB wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 10:07:11 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> > > You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
> > >
> > > Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...
>
> Spectra is a brand name for aramid fibers better know by another name: kevlar. I believe kevlar is used in the cockpits of the "safety cockpit" Schleicher gliders and probably others. A mix of carbon/kevlar seems to be common in the seatpans of new gliders these days.

[Mike C]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 9:40:38 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 10:07:11 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> > > You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
> > >
> > > Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...
>
> Spectra is a brand name for aramid fibers better know by another name: kevlar. I believe kevlar is used in the cockpits of the "safety cockpit" Schleicher gliders and probably others. A mix of carbon/kevlar seems to be common in the seatpans of new gliders these days.

Spectra is a polyethylene material. Kevlar is an aramid.

Mike

[krasw]

tiistai 13. helmikuuta 2018 6.40.38 UTC+2 WB kirjoitti:
> On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 10:07:11 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> > > You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
> > >
> > > Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...
>
> Spectra is a brand name for aramid fibers better know by another name: kevlar. I believe kevlar is used in the cockpits of the "safety cockpit" Schleicher gliders and probably others. A mix of carbon/kevlar seems to be common in the seatpans of new gliders these days.

Carbon shatters to (sharp) pieces, with wowen kevlar fibers in fabric the structure does not completely disappear around you in case of crash. AFAIK carbon itself is stronger fibre that kevlar. I think most flaps and ailerons are made of 100% kevlar, though not sure why. Maybe it's lighter than carbon and still strong enough?

[Kiwi User]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 20:52:28 -0800, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:

> Interesting, as in sailing we have kevlar sails, but spectra lines.
>
Yes, and that 'Spectra' is a high density polyethylene, not aramid. I
used to use it as towline for F1A free flight competition models.

About 3-4 years ago my gliding club started to use it on our winches. Its
much better than steel cable: less stretch/energy storage and light
enough that two people can easily pull the end back to the launch point
if a launch was abandoned during the ground run.


--

[Kiwi User]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 02:59:34 -0800, krasw wrote:

> Carbon shatters to (sharp) pieces, with wowen kevlar fibers in fabric
> the structure does not completely disappear around you in case of crash.
> AFAIK carbon itself is stronger fibre that kevlar. I think most flaps
> and ailerons are made of 100% kevlar, though not sure why. Maybe it's
> lighter than carbon and still strong enough?
>
I don't know whether its lighter than carbon, but its easier to get
lighter weight kevlar fabric than carbon (35 gsm vs 80gsm). Horrible
stuff to work with, though.

[WB]

Doh! Sorry, brain fade on my part. Yes, spectra is poly, not aramid. Sorry.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

AoA would be nice.

[Dan Marotta]

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/bk-klr10.php?gclid=CjwKCAiAtorUBRBnEiwAfcp_Y1gX_J-Nvp4cv4rLOBsSXtPnt69cUklny2uw7n8E7KZOBfeFHpaO9hoCU 1EQAvD_BwE

Or a piece of yarn taped to either side of the canopy.Â* You could go big
and use TWO of Bumper's MkIV yaws trings, of course they'd have to be
reprogrammed to act as AoA indicators.Â* Last time I checked the firmware
upgrade only cost $895 and I think you could get a quantity discount for
two.

Is it April yet?

On 2/13/2018 9:09 AM, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> AoA would be nice.

--
Dan, 5J

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 2:59:37 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> I think most flaps and ailerons are made of 100% kevlar, though not sure why. Maybe it's lighter than carbon and still strong enough?

It's all about making a control surface that is limber enough in bending so it can deflect up and down while hinged to a bent wing, while still having enough torsional stiffness to transmit motion while resisting flutter.

Think about an early ASW20 at 2g, with the wings bent up about 1.5m. Now imagine deflecting the flaperons up on the left side and down on the right side (left stick). Because the wings and the flaperon hinge path are curved, the left flaperon trailing edge is being shortened as if the surface is being bent aft at the tip. On the right side, the trailing edge is being stretched as if the surface is being bent forward at the tip.

With the flaperons made of carbon, the result would be a control surface so stiff in bending that at any appreciable load factor the stick would spring to the center and resist flaperon deflection. This could be quite dangerous, because for example it would resist the leveling of wings while in a spiral dive.

Waibel's team at Schleicher appears to have tried several construction methods for the ASW20 flaperons before settling on sandwich construction with skins made with 2oz Kevlar on each side of Rohacell core foam. They also refined the design of the trailing edge joint so that it required a minimum of bonding paste, which helps keep the bending stiffness to a minimum. This was just one of a huge series of detail refinements required to go from a design to a functional product.

If you come to one of our Akaflieg sessions (next one is probably in late March) I'll show you all of the complexities that go into making effective flaperons.

--Bob K.
Bob Kuykendall
www.hpaircraft.com
https://www.facebook.com/HP-24-Kit-Sailplane-200931354951

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 3:20:37 PM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 2:59:37 AM UTC-8, krasw wrote:
> > I think most flaps and ailerons are made of 100% kevlar, though not sure why. Maybe it's lighter than carbon and still strong enough?
>
> It's all about making a control surface that is limber enough in bending so it can deflect up and down while hinged to a bent wing, while still having enough torsional stiffness to transmit motion while resisting flutter.
>
> Think about an early ASW20 at 2g, with the wings bent up about 1.5m. Now imagine deflecting the flaperons up on the left side and down on the right side (left stick). Because the wings and the flaperon hinge path are curved, the left flaperon trailing edge is being shortened as if the surface is being bent aft at the tip. On the right side, the trailing edge is being stretched as if the surface is being bent forward at the tip.
>
> With the flaperons made of carbon, the result would be a control surface so stiff in bending that at any appreciable load factor the stick would spring to the center and resist flaperon deflection. This could be quite dangerous, because for example it would resist the leveling of wings while in a spiral dive.
>
> Waibel's team at Schleicher appears to have tried several construction methods for the ASW20 flaperons before settling on sandwich construction with skins made with 2oz Kevlar on each side of Rohacell core foam. They also refined the design of the trailing edge joint so that it required a minimum of bonding paste, which helps keep the bending stiffness to a minimum. This was just one of a huge series of detail refinements required to go from a design to a functional product.
>
> If you come to one of our Akaflieg sessions (next one is probably in late March) I'll show you all of the complexities that go into making effective flaperons.
>
> --Bob K.
> Bob Kuykendall
> www.hpaircraft.com
> https://www.facebook.com/HP-24-Kit-Sailplane-200931354951

And after you figure out bending while maintaining torsional stiffness add in a solution that allows the flexible hinge to provide the required profile through the region. All this to improve on a mylar seal.
Not so easy
UH

[ND]

On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 5:59:37 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> tiistai 13. helmikuuta 2018 6.40.38 UTC+2 WB kirjoitti:
> > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 10:07:11 PM UTC-6, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > > No, and spectra is way too expensive to use for deck lids, fenders... It is in a lay up.
> > > On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 5:44:57 PM UTC-8, Tony wrote:
> > > > You mean the tethers that keep deck lids, fenders, and the like from flying into the crowd?
> > > >
> > > > Probably not needed in typical Sailplane crashes...
> >
> > Spectra is a brand name for aramid fibers better know by another name: kevlar. I believe kevlar is used in the cockpits of the "safety cockpit" Schleicher gliders and probably others. A mix of carbon/kevlar seems to be common in the seatpans of new gliders these days.
>
> Carbon shatters to (sharp) pieces, with wowen kevlar fibers in fabric the structure does not completely disappear around you in case of crash. AFAIK carbon itself is stronger fibre that kevlar. I think most flaps and ailerons are made of 100% kevlar, though not sure why. Maybe it's lighter than carbon and still strong enough?

correct lighter, and still strong, but more expensive (i think). they pay for it on the controls because it reduce the amount of weight (also reduces space) needed to mass balance the controls.

[ND]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

interesting idea about smaller battery and a generator for FES.

would also be nice to have harnesses that retract like in a car. so that they arent flopping all over the cockpit. they'd be easier to reach too.

speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've always thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out of your head.

[John Foster]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:46 AM UTC-7, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

I would like to see instrumentation that could be like radar that would give a graphic representation on the flight computer screen that shows lift and sink, possibly in color represented in color scales between green and red.. Either that, or a HUD/holographic projection on the canopy to give a visual depiction of the movement of the surrounding air (lift, sink, wind direction).

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

To me, most "pilot damage" is either feet (cockpit eggshells) or vertical loads that damage/break the spine.....assuming not a major hit.
Taken from someone that has "broken their back, twice", but not in a sailplane.
Only looking at accidents I have read or been an early party to recovery.

To me, airbags (unless maybe under the pilot) are a ton of cost with little to no benefit, just my opinion......

"If airbags were so great, why don't ANY auto motorsports require them?".
Because, a good set of well anchored belts will be about the best bet.
Aircraft crashes tend to have a vertical motion, belts don't help there. Crush structure does.......most wouldn't put an airbag under your back/butt where most damage is done.
Cockpit structure for your feet/lower legs HAS been done.
Ask Andy Gough.......I helped first responders during his incident many years ago in PA.
Glad to see him return to contests.

[Kiwi User]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:

> speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've always
> thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out of your
> head.
>
Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight and
the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may hit your
chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your head won't hit
it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your head hitting the panel

That said, I've been shown photos of lap-strap anchor point failures
during a BGA safety talk. Some of the older gliders used steel rod with
four bends to form a joggle for the lap-strap to go through. These were
attached to the hull with patches of glasscloth glued on over the
straight bits at each end of the rod. Stop suddenly enough with a heavy
pilot on board and the patches tear or pull off the hull, but IIRC that
usually causes the pilot to submarine under the panel rather than hitting
his head on it.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[AS]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 1:31:46 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Was so tried of the hard deck discussion thought I would try a discussion of dreams. After seeing the vision of Elon Musk with his Falcon Heavy, I had to pinch myself. Those two boosters landing in sync..
>
> What are some of the innovative, new technology, original thought, scifi dreams, would you like to see in a brand new glider design? Let your inter Elon Musk flow.
>
> We have seen the New Ventus, the JS-3 (very innovative), Dianna 3. So far the South Africans have shown the most original thought.
>
> If you were to design a glider what are your dreams?
>
> 18/21 or 15/18 meters
>
> Sustainer, jet, electric, two stroke?
>
> Light weight: I would love to be able to get to 7.5 pounds with a 220 lb pilot+chute and up to 12ish pounds wet. This might take new manufacturing methods and materials. Perhaps pre-preg, vacuum bagging...?
>
> Pedestal mounted wing?

How about a standardized and reliable BlueTooth communication protocol between the electronic gizmos we have on our panels today? Eliminate all these data cables and only run power to them from a bus bar.
Uli
'AS'

[WB]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-6, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:
>
> > speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've always
> > thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out of your
> > head.
> >
> Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight and
> the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may hit your
> chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your head won't hit
> it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your head hitting the panel
>
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

That's assuming a straight ahead impact. A friend was killed when his glider impacted in a yawed orientating (spin). The side of his head hit the canopy rail hard enough to kill him. It would have taken side airbags to have protected him, or a helmet.

[ND]

On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:19:48 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-6, Kiwi User wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:
> >
> > > speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've always
> > > thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out of your
> > > head.
> > >
> > Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight and
> > the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may hit your
> > chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your head won't hit
> > it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your head hitting the panel
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin | martin at
> > Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> That's assuming a straight ahead impact. A friend was killed when his glider impacted in a yawed orientating (spin). The side of his head hit the canopy rail hard enough to kill him. It would have taken side airbags to have protected him, or a helmet.

side airbags is basically what i was thinking, to protect your head during a yawing or side impact. like if you were going into a ridge, caught a wingtip first, and impacted sideways.

[Kiwi User]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 05:36:39 -0800, ND wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:19:48 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-6, Kiwi User wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:
>> >
>> > > speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've
>> > > always thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out
>> > > of your head.
>> > >
>> > Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight
>> > and the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may
>> > hit your chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your
>> > head won't hit it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your head
>> > hitting the panel
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>>
>> That's assuming a straight ahead impact. A friend was killed when his
>> glider impacted in a yawed orientating (spin). The side of his head hit
>> the canopy rail hard enough to kill him. It would have taken side
>> airbags to have protected him, or a helmet.
>
> side airbags is basically what i was thinking, to protect your head
> during a yawing or side impact. like if you were going into a ridge,
> caught a wingtip first, and impacted sideways.

I'd have thought that the tip would catch, causing the glider to pivot
round it through almost 90 degrees, putting the fuselage into the ridge
nose-first. Have I got that wrong?


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[John Seaborn (A8)]

I mean if we are going to dream,

- Deployable drone cloud that helps find and center lift. Fun in gaggles!
- A minimum speed of say 20 knots for landing and climb
- Expert system flight computers that anticipate pilot need based on the phase of flight, making real-time display and sensor adjustments and offering guidance.
- Fly by wire controls that integrate loading and maneuvering inputs with flap movements
- Cloud recognition software that does shape analysis using time lapse
- Smart system learning vario that learns the pneumatic inputs of the particular glider it is installed and the day factors in real time so it gets smarter the more you fly, even with a day factor.
- OK not glider but rigging integrated into trailer design
- Something that will mask the height from the Hard Deck analysis software.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, February 12, 2018 at 3:37:12 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> ...
> *Reduced battery pack for the FES. Replace that with a 5 HP 4-stroke generator and you loose all drawbacks of FES.

- Excellent idea. Use the high-energy-density of gasoline to store energy for the rarely-used operation of a lengthy sustain. Save weight and cost.

[ND]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:18:37 PM UTC-5, Kiwi User wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 05:36:39 -0800, ND wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:19:48 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-6, Kiwi User wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've
> >> > > always thought that during a crash, you probably smack the **** out
> >> > > of your head.
> >> > >
> >> > Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight
> >> > and the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may
> >> > hit your chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your
> >> > head won't hit it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your head
> >> > hitting the panel
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
> >>
> >> That's assuming a straight ahead impact. A friend was killed when his
> >> glider impacted in a yawed orientating (spin). The side of his head hit
> >> the canopy rail hard enough to kill him. It would have taken side
> >> airbags to have protected him, or a helmet.
> >
> > side airbags is basically what i was thinking, to protect your head
> > during a yawing or side impact. like if you were going into a ridge,
> > caught a wingtip first, and impacted sideways.
>
> I'd have thought that the tip would catch, causing the glider to pivot
> round it through almost 90 degrees, putting the fuselage into the ridge
> nose-first. Have I got that wrong?
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

yeah, it's not going to pivot on the wingtip and hit nose first. it IS going to pivot. but would probably pivot, stall, and begin to fall all while travelling sideways. the nose may be the first to touch the ground but i think the major force of the impact would be in a sideways direction, relative to the pilot.

i think you'll agree that it wouldn't be a horrible thing to have airbags deploy around the pilots head in this situation (i realize its not him catching a wingtip) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nsXL72S9OA

[Kiwi User]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 13:38:45 -0800, ND wrote:

> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 3:18:37 PM UTC-5, Kiwi User wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 05:36:39 -0800, ND wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 6:19:48 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 2:01:41 PM UTC-6, Kiwi User
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 11:06:11 -0800, ND wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > speaking of cars... this is a little nuts, but, airbags? i've
>> >> > > always thought that during a crash, you probably smack the ****
>> >> > > out of your head.
>> >> > >
>> >> > Airbags shouldn't be necessary provided that your straps are tight
>> >> > and the anchor points don't pop off the hull, though your chin may
>> >> > hit your chest quite hard. The stick is be short enough that your
>> >> > head won't hit it and the shoulder + lap straps will stop your
>> >> > head hitting the panel
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>> >>
>> >> That's assuming a straight ahead impact. A friend was killed when
>> >> his glider impacted in a yawed orientating (spin). The side of his
>> >> head hit the canopy rail hard enough to kill him. It would have
>> >> taken side airbags to have protected him, or a helmet.
>> >
>> > side airbags is basically what i was thinking, to protect your head
>> > during a yawing or side impact. like if you were going into a ridge,
>> > caught a wingtip first, and impacted sideways.
>>
>> I'd have thought that the tip would catch, causing the glider to pivot
>> round it through almost 90 degrees, putting the fuselage into the ridge
>> nose-first. Have I got that wrong?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> yeah, it's not going to pivot on the wingtip and hit nose first. it IS
> going to pivot. but would probably pivot, stall, and begin to fall all
> while travelling sideways. the nose may be the first to touch the ground
> but i think the major force of the impact would be in a sideways
> direction, relative to the pilot.
>
> i think you'll agree that it wouldn't be a horrible thing to have
> airbags deploy around the pilots head in this situation (i realize its
> not him catching a wingtip) :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nsXL72S9OA

I don't think you can tell a lot from that: it looks more like low speed
stall-spin onto the top of a wide spur. I can just about read the ASI,
which looks to be reading in the low 30s and the yaw string also appears
to show low speed judging by the way it first flaps about, followed by a
slip toward the low wing as the spin develops.

In the ridge-running scenario we were talking about the glider should be
flying a lot faster to keep the glider responsive. I don't go near the
hill at less than 55kts in my Libelle. Catching a tip would whip the
glider round pretty fast and, if the slope is covered in scrubby stuff
the tip isn't going to pull free. Of course, if your tip touches smooth
rock, then things are rather different but thats a situation I've never
flown in. My ridge running experience, apart from one flight in a DG-1000
at Omarama, has been under 3000 ft along grass or heather-covered ridges.

In the conditions I think I understand airbags might help, but then
again, they might not. Further, consider that a glider cockpit is a very
small volume to trigger and explosive inflation in, so that could be very
harmful by itself. Think of eardrums getting ruptured.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Paul Agnew]

Amsafe.com

Airbag seatbelts for general aviation and airlines. They already have some pretty innovative solutions. Unlike your car, these don't explode in your face. And, before you ask, there has never been an inadvertent deployment, but they have had some incredible saves - including the notorious airplane thief, the Barefoot Bandit.

I helped write my airline's MEL for our Amsafe seatbelts and the tech is solid. The slow-motion videos are amazing to watch.

Paul A.

[WB]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:49:20 PM UTC-6, John Seaborn (A8) wrote:
> I mean if we are going to dream,
>
> - Deployable drone cloud that helps find and center lift. Fun in gaggles!
> - A minimum speed of say 20 knots for landing and climb
> - Expert system flight computers that anticipate pilot need based on the phase of flight, making real-time display and sensor adjustments and offering guidance.
> - Fly by wire controls that integrate loading and maneuvering inputs with flap movements
> - Cloud recognition software that does shape analysis using time lapse
> - Smart system learning vario that learns the pneumatic inputs of the particular glider it is installed and the day factors in real time so it gets smarter the more you fly, even with a day factor.
> - OK not glider but rigging integrated into trailer design
> - Something that will mask the height from the Hard Deck analysis software.

Hey A8, A lot of your ideas should be doable with current tech. Cloud recognition software is an intriguing idea and could be done now. The drone wingmen idea is an idea that I have heard kicked around jokingly during hangar flying. More often the conversation is about having a drone wingman to shoot video. Apparently I hang around with a bunch of narcissists ;).

It would be a huge boon to soaring if we could get our stall speed down to 20 knots without killing our top end. A 20 knot off field landing would sure be a lot less likely to hurt somebody. Heck, on a day with a stiff breeze, one could back into a parking space.

How about LIDAR for identifying thermals at a distance? Lasers and optics are certainly getting small enough to make something like that feasible for a glider. I read somewhere that the sailing guys have LIDAR for reading the wind out ahead. Not sure if that LIDAR is picking up backscatter from sea spray or what. Thermals usually carry some load of particulates (that annoyingly accumulate on our leading edges) that the laser could see. I'd try to make one myself if only I knew my amps from a hole in the ground.

WB

[WB]

On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 7:53:55 PM UTC-6, Paul Agnew wrote:
> Amsafe.com
>
> Airbag seatbelts for general aviation and airlines. They already have some pretty innovative solutions. Unlike your car, these don't explode in your face. And, before you ask, there has never been an inadvertent deployment, but they have had some incredible saves - including the notorious airplane thief, the Barefoot Bandit.
>
> I helped write my airline's MEL for our Amsafe seatbelts and the tech is solid. The slow-motion videos are amazing to watch.
>
> Paul A.

I'm surprised that airbag seatbelts haven't shown up in cars. Seems they would reduce some of the problems with airbags deploying into one's face. For gliders, maybe an airbag system to protect feet and lower legs. Those safety cockpits are great, but feet and lower legs are still in the crumple zone.

[FZ[_2_]]

I'm dreaming small.: Non frosting canopy, so I don't have to open the window and freeze my but.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 7:47:41 AM UTC+3, FZ wrote:
> I'm dreaming small.: Non frosting canopy, so I don't have to open the window and freeze my but.

A problem with motorcycle visors too. Seems to have been solved relatively recently. Google "pinlock". Maybe something similar would work on glider canopies.

Much larger scale, so maybe you'd want something that went from canopy rail to canopy rail, and with some kind of cell system with ridges for spacing from the canopy every 100m or so.