'Bent on flying

I was thinking (I tend to do that when it's raining outside and there's
nothing on the idiot box). Has anybody ever tried to make a Human
Powered Aircraft (HPA) in the configuration of a flying wing? (For those
unfamiliar with the term, the B-1 bomber is a flying wing. It has no
fuselage or tail. it's just a wing.)

A flying wing has the greatest lift-drag ratio of _all_ fixed wing
aircraft, around 9-1, if I'm not mistaken, And a recumbent bicycle,
likewise, also has the least amount of air resistance of any bicycle
design. Both due to their low frontal area. It seems to me that with an
HPA, like a hang glider, lift to drag ratios are of utmost importance!
Therefore it seems logical that the combination of these two would
result in the ideal configuration for an aircraft with relatively
limited power, like human muscles.

Nearly all hang gliders use a variation of this design, A large wing,
with the flyer in a prone position either under or, in the case of many
biplane designs, within it. No fuselage. No tail. Just a wing (and the
pilot). So why hasn't this been used for HPA's?

I'm not talking about suspending the cyclist/flyer under the wing, but
encapsulating him inside it. Imagine if you will a scaled down version
of the B-1, with the rider inside the center bulge, which would act as a
fairing. Result: High lift, Low drag.

I know I can't be the first to think of this. Jack Northrup didn't
invent the flying wing either, for that matter. So why hasn't anybody
tried it? Or, if they have, why didn't it work?

Or did it?

"May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" wrote in message
...
I was thinking (I tend to do that when it's raining outside and there's
nothing on the idiot box). Has anybody ever tried to make a Human
Powered Aircraft (HPA) in the configuration of a flying wing? (For those
unfamiliar with the term, the B-1 bomber is a flying wing. It has no
fuselage or tail. it's just a wing.)

I seem to remember someone pedalling across the Channel or from Crete to
Greece or something in what looked a lot like a flying wing. Can't recall
exactly. Try searching on those two things and see if you can get a photo.

Cheers,

Scott..

In article ,
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") wrote:

I was thinking (I tend to do that when it's raining outside and there's
nothing on the idiot box). Has anybody ever tried to make a Human
Powered Aircraft (HPA) in the configuration of a flying wing? (For those
unfamiliar with the term, the B-1 bomber is a flying wing. It has no
fuselage or tail. it's just a wing.)

A flying wing has the greatest lift-drag ratio of _all_ fixed wing
aircraft, around 9-1, if I'm not mistaken, And a recumbent bicycle,
likewise, also has the least amount of air resistance of any bicycle
design. Both due to their low frontal area. It seems to me that with an
HPA, like a hang glider, lift to drag ratios are of utmost importance!
Therefore it seems logical that the combination of these two would
result in the ideal configuration for an aircraft with relatively
limited power, like human muscles.

The HPAs out there conform to some general body similarities: long wing,
streamlined cockpit just big enough for pilot and the drivetrain
(usually recumbent).

A wing thick enough to hold the pilot would probably be huge, or heavy,
or take on a wildly unaerodynamic shape, or all three. All HPAs are very
marginal designs. They sort of just make it into the air, just hang
around for a while, just barely fly, and then they land. That said, the
distance record is nearly 4 hours and just over 115 km, Daedalus 88:

http://www.fai.org/records/records_i.html

Nearly all hang gliders use a variation of this design, A large wing,
with the flyer in a prone position either under or, in the case of many
biplane designs, within it. No fuselage. No tail. Just a wing (and the
pilot). So why hasn't this been used for HPA's?

You can put a fairing on an HPA.

I know I can't be the first to think of this. Jack Northrup didn't
invent the flying wing either, for that matter. So why hasn't anybody
tried it? Or, if they have, why didn't it work?

Or did it?

All the HPA designs I can find online look the same. Big long wing,
fuselage under. The last trend was to separate the fuselage from the
wing and reshape it to look a lot like the Varna Diablo:

http://www.nasg.com/birdman/birdman03/pictures-e.html
http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisi...rna_Diablo.jpg

http://www.nasg.com/index-e.html

Alas, there seem to be no serious HPA designs being built. With the
Kremer prize long-ago bagged, little interest seems to persist. There
was some recent helicopter action (including the first successful flight
of an HP heli, but it was kinda sad).

The basic problem seems to be that all HP aircraft are currently
hard-to-fly planes that require a pretty athletic pilot just to get off
the ground. Materials and design can help, but not a lot. And they're
fragile, vulnerable to winds, and otherwise unsuitable for all but the
most careful use. And none of this seems likely to change soon.

Share & Enjoy,
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

The basic problem seems to be that all HP aircraft are currently
hard-to-fly planes that require a pretty athletic pilot just to get off
the ground. Materials and design can help, but not a lot. And they're
fragile, vulnerable to winds, and otherwise unsuitable for all but the
most careful use. And none of this seems likely to change soon.

Decades ago, Bryan Allen (pilot of McCready's "Gossamer" planes) had an
article in Bike Tech, IIRC, in which he wrote about flying the White
Dwarf, a small pedal-powered blimp. Helium bag about the size of a
small garage, big slow prop, big tail fins.

He described it as "flying as in a dream." You could hold your position
and hover with very little effort. You could drift over to a treetop
and look down in the birds nests. No superb conditioning required, and
no particular pilot skill, except to recognize when it was too windy to
go out.

He said it wasn't as technically difficult or hugely expensive as a
heavier-than-air pedal plane. It would be reasonable to own for a
wealthy person or a small club.

I still think it sounds cool - but I never heard more about it.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" wrote
I was thinking (I tend to do that when it's raining outside and there's
nothing on the idiot box). Has anybody ever tried to make a Human
Powered Aircraft (HPA) in the configuration of a flying wing? (For those
unfamiliar with the term, the B-1 bomber is a flying wing. It has no
fuselage or tail. it's just a wing.)

One small nitpick:
That's the B-2, not the B-1


A flying wing has the greatest lift-drag ratio of _all_ fixed wing
aircraft, around 9-1, if I'm not mistaken, And a recumbent bicycle,
likewise, also has the least amount of air resistance of any bicycle
design. Both due to their low frontal area. It seems to me that with an
HPA, like a hang glider, lift to drag ratios are of utmost importance!
Therefore it seems logical that the combination of these two would
result in the ideal configuration for an aircraft with relatively
limited power, like human muscles.

Nearly all hang gliders use a variation of this design, A large wing,
with the flyer in a prone position either under or, in the case of many
biplane designs, within it. No fuselage. No tail. Just a wing (and the
pilot). So why hasn't this been used for HPA's?

I'm not talking about suspending the cyclist/flyer under the wing, but
encapsulating him inside it. Imagine if you will a scaled down version
of the B-1, with the rider inside the center bulge, which would act as a
fairing. Result: High lift, Low drag.

I know I can't be the first to think of this. Jack Northrup didn't
invent the flying wing either, for that matter. So why hasn't anybody
tried it? Or, if they have, why didn't it work?

What would keep it stable in yaw? The B-2 only works because of the bigass
computer.

The classic Rogallo wing is stable (I think) in yaw, because the air flows
directionally through the two humps in the fabric. A flat rigid wing would
flail about from side to side. I may be completely wrong, though.

An HPA *has* to be as light as possible, due to the limited horsepower. A 4'
tall bulge to hold the pilot and drivetrain, tapering into wings would seem
to be ungainly, and too much wing thickness/weight just outboard of the
pilot pod

An old axiom of aircraft design...If it looks wrong, it flies wrong. (Not
always true, but a good place to start)

Pete

"frkrygow" wrote

Decades ago, Bryan Allen (pilot of McCready's "Gossamer" planes) had an
article in Bike Tech, IIRC, in which he wrote about flying the White
Dwarf, a small pedal-powered blimp. Helium bag about the size of a
small garage, big slow prop, big tail fins.

He described it as "flying as in a dream." You could hold your position
and hover with very little effort. You could drift over to a treetop
and look down in the birds nests. No superb conditioning required, and
no particular pilot skill, except to recognize when it was too windy to
go out.

He said it wasn't as technically difficult or hugely expensive as a
heavier-than-air pedal plane. It would be reasonable to own for a
wealthy person or a small club.

I still think it sounds cool - but I never heard more about it.

That would be *very* cool.

Pete

Wed, 10 Mar 2004 06:42:45 GMT,
, "Pete"
wrote:

I still think it sounds cool - but I never heard more about it.

That would be *very* cool.

Built in 1985 and languished in a shed. Flew again in October 2000.
There was a stir about getting it airborne for BikeSummer 2002 in
Portland Oregon but it never got off the ground, so to speak.
Last rendition of it had sprouted weed whacker engines.
http://home.teleport.com/~reedg/whitedwarf.html
--
zk

In article ,
says...
I was thinking (I tend to do that when it's raining outside and there's
nothing on the idiot box). Has anybody ever tried to make a Human
Powered Aircraft (HPA) in the configuration of a flying wing? (For those
unfamiliar with the term, the B-1 bomber is a flying wing. It has no
fuselage or tail. it's just a wing.)

The B-2, you mean? The B-1 is a supersonic, conventional swing-wing.

.....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

In article ,
says...

....

Nearly all hang gliders use a variation of this design, A large wing,
with the flyer in a prone position either under or, in the case of many
biplane designs, within it. No fuselage. No tail. Just a wing (and the
pilot). So why hasn't this been used for HPA's?

I'm not talking about suspending the cyclist/flyer under the wing, but
encapsulating him inside it. Imagine if you will a scaled down version
of the B-1, with the rider inside the center bulge, which would act as a
fairing. Result: High lift, Low drag.

I know I can't be the first to think of this. Jack Northrup didn't
invent the flying wing either, for that matter. So why hasn't anybody
tried it? Or, if they have, why didn't it work?

Flying wings are very difficult to stabilize because they can't be
inherently stable in more than one axis. It was tried back in the 50's,
and one flew a few times before it crashed. The B-2 needs a lot of
computer power to make the continuous adjustments required to keep it on
course, kind of like the stealth fighter (F-117). A hang glider is
stable because the shape of the wing (kind of an "M") adds an effective
vertical (yaw) stabilizer at the center and the outer ends of the wing,
and the person hanging below the wing helps with the roll stability.
Without vertical stabilizing surfaces, I doubt you'd ever get a human-
powered flying wing to fly.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

My father (now 82) has been working on motorless flight for decades. One
invention is a combination of wing and dirigible, where a transparent top
layer and a reflective bottom layer cause the inflated wing to heat up, sort
of like a wrapped cloud, and the air-foil is designed in such a way that it
must also move forward. He has also been experimenting with something the
Wright brothers called "hyper-zenithal effect" - a certain shape of wing
will be pulled into the teeth of a headwind. So a kite-like contraption in
that shape will propel itself, chasing the wind rather than fleeing it.

I think the world is full of whacky inventors like him, playing in their
backyards with bits of plastic and string. The reason you never hear of
them, even when their inventions work, is that no-one ever takes them
seriously enough to get to the production and marketing phase.

EFR
Ile de France

Chris Zacho The Wheelman wrote:

I know I can't be the first to think of this. Jack Northrup didn't
invent the flying wing either, for that matter. So why hasn't anybody
tried it? Or, if they have, why didn't it work?

Or did it?