sliding wings?

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

I seem to remember a German University Akafleig (Academic Flying Group)
built and flew a telescoping wing glider in the 1960's. I recently heard a
proposal to use an inflatable airfoil structure that extended the wingspan
of a metal wing at low speeds. It seems very complicated but, if
successful, the payoff is huge for STOL performance plus high speed cruise

Bill Daniels

wrote in message
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

In article .com,
" wrote:

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

Do your eyeglass cases have ribs? Do you want to introduce a substantial
amount of complexity, perhaps roughly on a par with retractable landing
gear? Do you want to carry around a bunch of useless weight during
cruise just to give you a bit better STOL performance?

I'll keep an open mind, and would love to hear this idea fleshed out,
but for now, I think flaps are the weapon of choice here.

hmm...I am just asking. I am not an engineer, so I cannot calculate
loads and required strengths, but it would not seem to be too difficult
to integrate parallel ribs that slide along tracks with the extra wing.
or use some other wing strengthener that extends with the wing (e.g.,
a scissor-type extender). so maybe my eyeglass container solution
won't work, but flaps do not strike me as the only solution. yes, they
allow for a sharper angle of attack, but they do not gain much in terms
of wingloading. (and more importantly, in high speed, we need less
wing and drag, not more.)

inflatable would be nice, too... :-) modern materials like composites
should be pretty strong, too.

mostly just wondering why we do not get more wing when we need it...

/iaw

wrote:

hmm...I am just asking. I am not an engineer, so I cannot calculate
loads and required strengths, but it would not seem to be too difficult
to integrate parallel ribs that slide along tracks with the extra wing.
or use some other wing strengthener that extends with the wing (e.g.,
a scissor-type extender). so maybe my eyeglass container solution
won't work, but flaps do not strike me as the only solution. yes, they
allow for a sharper angle of attack, but they do not gain much in terms
of wingloading. (and more importantly, in high speed, we need less
wing and drag, not more.)

inflatable would be nice, too... :-) modern materials like composites
should be pretty strong, too.

mostly just wondering why we do not get more wing when we need it...

/iaw



What flaps DO gain is Coefficient of Lift,
which makes more lift from the area you already have.

wrote)
[snip]
mostly just wondering why we do not get more wing when we need it...


Here's a possible solution:

http://www.jefflewis.net/autogyros.html
Autogyro History and Theory

http://www.groenbros.com/product/history.htm
More history - Groen Brothers Aviation

My idea for an Autogyro is for the smallish blades to be able to provide an
extra (25% - 40%) lift for take off and landing. Plane would tool along at
100-138 mph (without much of a speed penalty from the Autogyro blades) and
there it would be when you needed it - letting you land at 42 mph instead of
62 mph ...or maybe even 37 mph. g

Now, if you want some fun - incorporate small air-tip jets into the blades
for a little extra boost on take offs or landings. No tail rotor needed.
:-)

Again, just enough of an Autogyro to be a good little helper to the plane's
wings. (It sure wouldn't hurt having one in an engine out situation.)


Montblack

In article . com,
" wrote:

hmm...I am just asking. I am not an engineer, so I cannot calculate
loads and required strengths, but it would not seem to be too difficult
to integrate parallel ribs that slide along tracks with the extra wing.
or use some other wing strengthener that extends with the wing (e.g.,
a scissor-type extender). so maybe my eyeglass container solution
won't work, but flaps do not strike me as the only solution. yes, they
allow for a sharper angle of attack, but they do not gain much in terms
of wingloading. (and more importantly, in high speed, we need less
wing and drag, not more.)

inflatable would be nice, too... :-) modern materials like composites
should be pretty strong, too.

mostly just wondering why we do not get more wing when we need it...

/iaw

Not being an engineer should give you a leg up.

The point I had hoped to make with the rib reference is that, I don't
quite see how the ribs in the extension will slide past the ribs in the
main wing.

There have been a lot of experimentals with variable wingspan.

One you will find here

http://www.aviafrance.com/4806.htm

KH

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

Not variable wingspan, but variable wings

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/rk-i.html



http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/is-1.html



KH



"Karl-Heinz Kuenzel" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
There have been a lot of experimentals with variable wingspan.

One you will find here

http://www.aviafrance.com/4806.htm

KH

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
" wrote:

when I look at my eyeglass case, I see two closely overlapping
wing-type shapes that are being pulled apart for opening.

why would it not be worthwhile to extend wings this way for landing and
departure?

/iaw

Do your eyeglass cases have ribs? Do you want to introduce a substantial
amount of complexity, perhaps roughly on a par with retractable landing
gear? Do you want to carry around a bunch of useless weight during
cruise just to give you a bit better STOL performance?

I'll keep an open mind, and would love to hear this idea fleshed out,
but for now, I think flaps are the weapon of choice here.

Come to think of it, one of the latest racing 15 meter wingspan racing
sailplanes has a 100% monococque wing - no ribs or spar.