lightest DLG gliders

[[email protected]]

The perfect recipe for ultimate hang-time due to a unique combination of airfoil, aerodynamic body and of course weight of the glider, at 70 to 90+- grans, its the lightest RC DLG Glider ever..yes ever :)
more information at https://www.MicroBirds.com

Specifications

Wingspan: 32.5" (825.5mm)
Length: 14" (431mm)
Wing Area 203.8 sq.in.
Wing Loading 2.61 oz./sq.ft.
Flying Weight 2.8oz (86grams)
Airfoil modified PW1211 & PW98 with washout
2 channels (elevon mixing

[son_of_flubber]

This is one of the nicest most interesting pieces of spam that I have every seen posted to this newsgroup.

I'd rather see posts like this than those stupid "FS: 10 year old flight computer for $500".

[Dan Marotta]

I don't want to hurt my brain by scaling those numbers to a real-sized
glider just to see what the wing loading is.Â* Anyone care to do the
arithmetic?

On 3/7/2018 7:08 PM, wrote:
> The perfect recipe for ultimate hang-time due to a unique combination of airfoil, aerodynamic body and of course weight of the glider, at 70 to 90+- grans, its the lightest RC DLG Glider ever..yes ever :)
> more information at https://www.MicroBirds.com
>
> Specifications
>
> Wingspan: 32.5" (825.5mm)
> Length: 14" (431mm)
> Wing Area 203.8 sq.in.
> Wing Loading 2.61 oz./sq.ft.
> Flying Weight 2.8oz (86grams)
> Airfoil modified PW1211 & PW98 with washout
> 2 channels (elevon mixing

--
Dan, 5J

[AS]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I don't want to hurt my brain by scaling those numbers to a real-sized
> glider just to see what the wing loading is.Â* Anyone care to do the
> arithmetic?
>

Dan,

2.61oz/sqft equals to 0.163125 pound/sqft or 0.796446 kg/m^2

Uli
'AS'

[Dan Marotta]

Cool, thanks!

On 3/8/2018 5:27 PM, AS wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> I don't want to hurt my brain by scaling those numbers to a real-sized
>> glider just to see what the wing loading is.Â* Anyone care to do the
>> arithmetic?
>>
> Dan,
>
> 2.61oz/sqft equals to 0.163125 pound/sqft or 0.796446 kg/m^2
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

[Darryl Ramm]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:40:37 PM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Cool, thanks!
>
> On 3/8/2018 5:27 PM, AS wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 7:13:09 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> >> I don't want to hurt my brain by scaling those numbers to a real-sized
> >> glider just to see what the wing loading is.Â* Anyone care to do the
> >> arithmetic?
> >>
> > Dan,
> >
> > 2.61oz/sqft equals to 0.163125 pound/sqft or 0.796446 kg/m^2
> >
> > Uli
> > 'AS'
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

And you can just type "convert 2.61oz/sqft to pound/sqft" into Google search... always handy for things like this.

[[email protected]]

> Wing Area 203.8 sq.in.
> Wing Loading 2.61 oz./sq.ft.
> Flying Weight 2.8oz (86grams)

What is wrong with my math below?

203.8 sq.in. / 144 = 1.4153 sq.ft.

2.8 oz / 1.4153 sq.ft. = 1.9784 oz./sq.ft. (??? but this is not 2.61 oz./sq.ft.???)

1.9784 oz./sq.ft. / 16 = 0.12365 pound/sqft

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:53:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Wing Area 203.8 sq.in.
> > Wing Loading 2.61 oz./sq.ft.
> > Flying Weight 2.8oz (86grams)
>
> What is wrong with my math below?
>
> 203.8 sq.in. / 144 = 1.4153 sq.ft.
>
> 2.8 oz / 1.4153 sq.ft. = 1.9784 oz./sq.ft. (??? but this is not 2.61 oz./sq.ft.???)
>
> 1.9784 oz./sq.ft. / 16 = 0.12365 pound/sqft

My converter says 86g = 3.033563 us oz... or 2.76596 troy oz...

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:07:10 AM UTC-6, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 11:53:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > > Wing Area 203.8 sq.in.
> > > Wing Loading 2.61 oz./sq.ft.
> > > Flying Weight 2.8oz (86grams)
> >
> > What is wrong with my math below?
> >
> > 203.8 sq.in. / 144 = 1.4153 sq.ft.
> >
> > 2.8 oz / 1.4153 sq.ft. = 1.9784 oz./sq.ft. (??? but this is not 2.61 oz./sq.ft.???)
> >
> > 1.9784 oz./sq.ft. / 16 = 0.12365 pound/sqft
>
> My converter says 86g = 3.033563 us oz... or 2.76596 troy oz...

And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries. What a silly way to use your brain cells, maybe we have found the reason for our trade deficit...

[AS]

> And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries. <

Amen!

Uli
'AS'

[Dan Marotta]

Are we talking about the backwater country that everyone seems to want
to move to without an invitation?

On 3/9/2018 11:59 AM, AS wrote:
>> And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries. <
> Amen!
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

--
Dan, 5J

[C-FFKQ (42)]

On Friday, 9 March 2018 14:26:06 UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Are we talking about the backwater country that everyone seems to want
> to move to without an invitation?
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Sorry, Dan... Canada is already using metric :)

[[email protected]]

"And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries."

"There are two systems of measurement. The Metric system, and the one that put a man on the Moon." (Anonymous)

Yeah, yeah, I know. Parochial and childish, but it is what it is. I personally use both systems interchangeably.

So at the present time, the "English" measurements are used in, uhh, Liberia, Myanmar and the US. Runnin' with the Big Dogs!

[Dan Marotta]

:-D

On 3/9/2018 5:42 PM, C-FFKQ (42) wrote:
> On Friday, 9 March 2018 14:26:06 UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Are we talking about the backwater country that everyone seems to want
>> to move to without an invitation?
>>
>> --
>> Dan, 5J
> Sorry, Dan... Canada is already using metric :)

--
Dan, 5J

[jfitch]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:42:58 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> "And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries."
>
> "There are two systems of measurement. The Metric system, and the one that put a man on the Moon." (Anonymous)
>
> Yeah, yeah, I know. Parochial and childish, but it is what it is. I personally use both systems interchangeably.
>
> So at the present time, the "English" measurements are used in, uhh, Liberia, Myanmar and the US. Runnin' with the Big Dogs!

All the Metric system does is throw out a bunch of units which over centuries were developed because they were useful. We could convert the Imperial system to 'metric' the same way: every weight would be quoted in ounces, every measurement in inches. Done. But not really useful. A mile would become 63 Kinches. Gliders would weigh 18.512 Kounces, rather than 1157 pounds. And the world would think us brilliant. But a mile is actually a useful unit, in context, as is a pound and a ton.

:)

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 6:42:58 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> "And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries."
>
> "There are two systems of measurement. The Metric system, and the one that put a man on the Moon." (Anonymous)
>
> Yeah, yeah, I know. Parochial and childish, but it is what it is. I personally use both systems interchangeably.
>
> So at the present time, the "English" measurements are used in, uhh, Liberia, Myanmar and the US. Runnin' with the Big Dogs!

Mark and 'Anonymus': the metric system is used in all of science, check it out. Remember the failed Mars shot some 30-40 years ago? The clear cause of conversion factor errors. Dan, don't forget your metric tool set when flying your beautiful Stemme!

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 3:44:57 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 6:42:58 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > "And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries."
> >
> > "There are two systems of measurement. The Metric system, and the one that put a man on the Moon." (Anonymous)
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, I know. Parochial and childish, but it is what it is. I personally use both systems interchangeably.
> >
> > So at the present time, the "English" measurements are used in, uhh, Liberia, Myanmar and the US. Runnin' with the Big Dogs!
>
> Mark and 'Anonymus': the metric system is used in all of science, check it out. Remember the failed Mars shot some 30-40 years ago? The clear cause of conversion factor errors. Dan, don't forget your metric tool set when flying your beautiful Stemme!

Less than 20 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter .

[Dan Marotta]

I have both kinds of tools.Â* It's maddening to need a metric wrench on a
Harley Davidson.Â* Frankly I have no grief with the metric system other
than the fact that, being raised with the "moon" system, I can visualize
the measurements.Â* I can look at an SAE nut and tell you that it's 3/8,
1/2, 9/16 inches, but I can't do the same with 6, 8,10,12 mm.Â* Just what
I'm used to.

I think the gliding community likes the metric system because 1,000 km
sounds more impressive than a mere 621.3712 miles, and way better than
539.9555 nautical miles.

On 3/10/2018 1:44 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 6:42:58 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> "And that's why the metric system rules worldwide - except for some backwater countries."
>>
>> "There are two systems of measurement. The Metric system, and the one that put a man on the Moon." (Anonymous)
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, I know. Parochial and childish, but it is what it is. I personally use both systems interchangeably.
>>
>> So at the present time, the "English" measurements are used in, uhh, Liberia, Myanmar and the US. Runnin' with the Big Dogs!
> Mark and 'Anonymus': the metric system is used in all of science, check it out. Remember the failed Mars shot some 30-40 years ago? The clear cause of conversion factor errors. Dan, don't forget your metric tool set when flying your beautiful Stemme!

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:00:20 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> But a mile is actually a useful unit, in context, as is a pound and a ton.

One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles, and one minute is a nautical miles which is 6000 feet. Makes for some easy math measuring distance on a chart.

Not as simple using the metric system...

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:19:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:00:20 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> > But a mile is actually a useful unit, in context, as is a pound and a ton.
>
> One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles, and one minute is a nautical miles which is 6000 feet. Makes for some easy math measuring distance on a chart.
>
> Not as simple using the metric system...

On 1:500 000 scale charts 1 cm represents 5km exactly. 1 inch more or less 8 miles.
On 1: 1000000 scale charts 1 cm represents 10km exactly 1 inch more or less 16 miles.

[Dan Marotta]

On 3/11/2018 9:31 AM, wrote:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:19:47 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:00:20 PM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
>>> But a mile is actually a useful unit, in context, as is a pound and a ton.
>> One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles, and one minute is a nautical miles which is 6000 feet. Makes for some easy math measuring distance on a chart.
>>
>> Not as simple using the metric system...
> On 1:500 000 scale charts 1 cm represents 5km exactly. 1 inch more or less 8 miles.
> On 1: 1000000 scale charts 1 cm represents 10km exactly 1 inch more or less 16 miles.
.... But you then have to carry a ruler with you in the cockpit or do you
have a body part that measures centimeters, e.g., the middle bone in my
little finger is very close to 1 inch so it's easy to approximate inches
on a chart, but why bother when I can simply use the minute marks to
estimate distance?Â* It is, therefore easy to see that 1 degree is 1.852
km.Â* Did you bring a calculator?

It's snowing outside... :-(
--
Dan, 5J