Why fly only seated?

"Uri Saovray" wrote in message
om...
Doug Hoffman wrote in message
...

One might ask, why lay that way? I assume you mean to imply that a
fuselage
with a smaller cross-section, hence less drag, could then be employed.
This
has sort of been done in the HP-18 series of gliders. In the HP-18 one
lays
almost flat on one's back, fet forward of course, with the head tilted
upward somewhat using a head rest. The HP-18 fuse is pretty short
compared
to most. Comfort can be an issue, or so I'm told. But to be fair, many
say
they like it just fine.

-Doug

And don't forget the Siren Edelweiss C30S
\ /
\./
----------------(o)-----------------
u
Diamant anyone? Thought the BS-1 was also very prone.

Frank Whiteley

"Robin Birch" wrote in message
...

During the second world war the Germans experimented with gliders to
shoot down bombers. At least one of these had a prone position. The
pilot had a chin rest to take the weight of his head.

I thought about that but thought maybe the structure to support the
chin-rest would then be in the 'flailing zone' in the event of an accident.
The next best thing would be something similar to the new neckbraces
motorsport drivers are using to restrain their heads in accidents, the HANS
safety device. A sort of carbon fibre neck brace.

http://jayski.thatsracin.com/schemes/hans.htm
http://www.guyons.com/hans.html

Ian

tango4 wrote:

Technical soaring ( the OSTIV magazine ) July 2002. pg 89.

The article suggests that the prone ( face down and forward ) position may
actually provide added safety rather than less safety when an analysis of
aircraft accidents is made.

I don't have access to this issue. Perhaps you could describe the
reasoning, because I have a hard time imagining how that could be. The
only thing I can think of is the pilot would be so afraid of crashing,
he'd be extremely careful to avoid any chance of an accident!

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message ...
"Uri Saovray" wrote in message
om...
Doug Hoffman wrote in message
...

One might ask, why lay that way? I assume you mean to imply that a
fuselage
with a smaller cross-section, hence less drag, could then be employed.
This
has sort of been done in the HP-18 series of gliders. In the HP-18 one
lays
almost flat on one's back, fet forward of course, with the head tilted
upward somewhat using a head rest. The HP-18 fuse is pretty short
compared
to most. Comfort can be an issue, or so I'm told. But to be fair, many
say
they like it just fine.

-Doug

And don't forget the Siren Edelweiss C30S
\ /
\./
----------------(o)-----------------
u
Diamant anyone? Thought the BS-1 was also very prone.

Frank Whiteley

Those have supine cockpits but, of course, they could also be prone to
do something! The original question was regarding prone seating
(laying?) position. Horten used a prone cockpit on several flying wing
designs and this can be seen very nicely on the Horten IV at:
http://members.cox.net/akecs/HoIVrest.htm

Also, there is a guy here in Tehachapi that designed a modern flying
wing with a prone cockpit but so far only a quarter scale has been
built.

All the best,
Steve

In article ,
(MikeYankee) wrote:

Pilots must also look to the left and right as well as ahead. If you are
sitting up, you retain much of the horizon in your peripheral view as you turn
your head. Not so when you are prone.

In fact this is one of the most annoying things about riding "sport"
motorcycles where your torso is lying fairly flat on top of the fuel
tank. You end up with a lot of your weight on your wrists (unless
you're going *very* fast) which is tiring after only an hour or so, but
it is also quite hard to look to the side and behind when making lane
changes. Even looking "up" around a corner when leaned over 45 degrees
isn't all that easy on the neck.

This shot of me would have been damn near impossible on a sport bike:

http://koti.mbnet.fi/maajussi/nz_97/nz2pic29.jpg

-- Bruce

"Steve Pawling" wrote in message
om...
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
"Uri Saovray" wrote in message
om...
Doug Hoffman wrote in message
...

One might ask, why lay that way? I assume you mean to imply that a
fuselage
with a smaller cross-section, hence less drag, could then be
employed.
This
has sort of been done in the HP-18 series of gliders. In the HP-18
one
lays
almost flat on one's back, fet forward of course, with the head
tilted
upward somewhat using a head rest. The HP-18 fuse is pretty short
compared
to most. Comfort can be an issue, or so I'm told. But to be fair,
many
say
they like it just fine.

-Doug

And don't forget the Siren Edelweiss C30S
\ /
\./
----------------(o)-----------------
u
Diamant anyone? Thought the BS-1 was also very prone.

Frank Whiteley

Those have supine cockpits but, of course, they could also be prone to
do something! The original question was regarding prone seating
(laying?) position. Horten used a prone cockpit on several flying wing
designs and this can be seen very nicely on the Horten IV at:
http://members.cox.net/akecs/HoIVrest.htm

Also, there is a guy here in Tehachapi that designed a modern flying
wing with a prone cockpit but so far only a quarter scale has been
built.

All the best,
Steve
Yeah, what I meant, but I was up very late last night;^) Emergency egress
from the Horten's was one of the problems. IIRC, the rear hatch was closed
from outside. Easier to pee in a bag though.

Frank Whiteley

At 12:06 28 December 2003, Doug Hoffman wrote:
From: Gill Couto

I want to ask you folks a question: why isn't there
a glider where
the pilot flies face-down? The Wrights did it, the
Horten (?) wing,
and hang gliders are about the only thing you can
fly facing the
earth. I don't see why a sailplane couldn't be flown
that way, but no
designers appear to even consider the possibility.
Ideas?

There's also crash survivability to consider. A head
first crash into an
object doesn't sound good. Feet and legs are relatively
expendable compared
to the head.

One might ask, why lay that way? I assume you mean
to imply that a fuselage
with a smaller cross-section, hence less drag, could
then be employed. This
has sort of been done in the HP-18 series of gliders.
In the HP-18 one lays
almost flat on one's back, fet forward of course, with
the head tilted
upward somewhat using a head rest. The HP-18 fuse
is pretty short compared
to most.
snip
-Doug

Actually, it is longer by 3 feet or so than my Discus.
A good bit of the extra length is in the boom.

Some fellow in the US (Midwest, maybe Chicago area?)
built a 10 or 12 meter glider back in the late 60s.
I believe it used the prone (not supine) head forward
position. There was a two or three page article (funny)
about it in SOARING.

At 23:06 28 December 2003, Steve Pawling wrote:
'F.L. Whiteley' wrote in message news:...
'Uri Saovray' wrote in message
om...
Doug Hoffman wrote in message
news:...

One might ask, why lay that way? I assume you mean
to imply that a
fuselage
with a smaller cross-section, hence less drag, could
then be employed.
This
has sort of been done in the HP-18 series of gliders.
In the HP-18 one
lays
almost flat on one's back, fet forward of course,
with the head tilted
upward somewhat using a head rest. The HP-18 fuse
is pretty short
compared
to most. Comfort can be an issue, or so I'm told.
But to be fair, many
say
they like it just fine.

-Doug

And don't forget the Siren Edelweiss C30S
\ /
\./
----------------(o)-----------------
u
Diamant anyone? Thought the BS-1 was also very prone.

Frank Whiteley

Those have supine cockpits but, of course, they could
also be prone to
do something! The original question was regarding prone
seating
(laying?) position. Horten used a prone cockpit on
several flying wing
designs and this can be seen very nicely on the Horten
IV at:
http://members.cox.net/akecs/HoIVrest.htm

Also, there is a guy here in Tehachapi that designed
a modern flying
wing with a prone cockpit but so far only a quarter
scale has been
built.

All the best,
Steve

"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...

Yeah, what I meant, but I was up very late last night;^) Emergency egress
from the Horten's was one of the problems. IIRC, the rear hatch was
closed
from outside. Easier to pee in a bag though.

Frank Whiteley

No problem with the egress. While the hatch was fitted by the ground crew,
the pilot could pull the pins retaining it with a cockpit control allowing
it to fly away. This hugely disrupted the airflow over the center section
of the swept wing which would cause the glider to dive. The pilot needed
only to raise up from the kneeling position, pull his ripcord and depart
rearward as the canopy opened - there being no empenage to collide with.

BTW, it is not correct to say that the HO IV had a prone cockpit. It was
actually flown from a kneeling position which Dr. Gus Raspet called "an
appropriate praying position" considering its handling problems.

Various schemes were tried for supporting the pilots head. The best seemed
to be a full leather helmet with a strap that passed over a roller above the
pilots head. This supported the head while allowing the pilot to turn his
head from side to side.

Bill Daniels