'Bent on flying

I think the gain you would get from encapsulating the pilot/biker would be
offset from the extra dihedral needed to stabilize the aircraft. The old
Gossomer Condor had the pilot/biker suspended from the wing, which provided
natural stability through gravity (pendulum effect.) The drag was minimal,
and pedaling AND flying in the regular position would naturally be easier
than in the prone, given that the aircraft would be less stable (or less
effecient if extra dihedral is needed.) I still have no doubt it can be
done though, given the use of carbon fiber and newer technologies.

From: (Pete)

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

Oops! Your right. I should have said YB-49, but I didn't think many
people here would remember it.

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

A flat rigid wing would flail about from
side to side. I may be completely wrong,
though.

The aforementioned Northrup bomber, as well as the German FW designs had
no computers, as this was the era of WW-2, such things didn't exist. Not
in any size or complexity that could be used in aircraft anyway. The
wing wouldn't have to be flat either. A slight dihedral should add
stability without seriously affecting lift.

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

Pete

The successful designs (McCready's Gossamers) all have a large faired
compartment under the wing, the center bulge holding a recumbent rider
shouldn't have a larger frontal area. It could be cylindrical in shape,
for example. This would retain the thinness of the wing area.

This is how the B-2 is designed, thin wings, center bulge.

"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

In article ,
(Chris Zacho "The Wheelman") says...
From: (Pete)

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

Oops! Your right. I should have said YB-49, but I didn't think many
people here would remember it.

Yeah, that's the one, but it didn't last long before crashing; too hard
to control. IIRC, it did have very small vertical stabilizers spaced
along the wing.

.....

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" wrote

The aforementioned Northrup bomber, as well as the German FW designs had
no computers, as this was the era of WW-2, such things didn't exist. Not
in any size or complexity that could be used in aircraft anyway. The
wing wouldn't have to be flat either. A slight dihedral should add
stability without seriously affecting lift.

The YB-49 did have 4 small vert surfaces, 'wing fences', at the back of the
wings, as well as using the engine pod shape for stability. And it *still*
had significant yaw problems.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/yb49/


The successful designs (McCready's Gossamers) all have a large faired
compartment under the wing, the center bulge holding a recumbent rider
shouldn't have a larger frontal area. It could be cylindrical in shape,
for example. This would retain the thinness of the wing area.

In such a design, the wing can be built as one piece. Hang the pilot from
the bottom.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/pho.../ECN-12604.jpg

Putting the pilot *in* the wing means either 2 seperate (thinnish) wings
attached to the pilot pod (heavy, and needs significant attachment
strength/weight), or a true one piece design, closer to the B-2. But that
then brings a much thicker (draggy) wingroot, to distribute the stresses.

Basically, what is the lightest structure that will lift ~250lbs without
collapsing?
Is a one piece wing stronger? I tend to think so.

Also, note that the Albatross has no control surfaces on the wing. The wing
is a true one piece design. The control is done out on the little wing on
the boom.

Could that be done with a twisting wing? Maybe.


This is how the B-2 is designed, thin wings, center bulge.

At the wing root, the wings look to be about 2/3 of the height of the center
cockpit bulge. Of course, some of that is space for the bomb bay, and also
to provide a smooth transfer from bulge to wing for stealth, neither of
which we don't have to worry about.

But..supposing a 4' (or even 3') tall cockpit...where do we begin to taper
the wings?

Pete
and we still haven't gotten around the yaw control problem.