'Bent on flying

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,

(Chris Zacho 'The Wheelman') said:

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:

fai.orgrecords i.htmlOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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:

nasg.compictures e.htmlOpen ↗ http:-
//www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2001/Varna_Diablo.jpg

nasg.comindex e.htmlOpen ↗

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, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Ryan Cousineau said:

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"" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote

Quoted message said:

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,
<[email hidden]>, "Pete" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.
home.teleport.comwhitedwarf.htmlOpen ↗
--
zk

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

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 <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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?

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: [email hidden] (Pete)

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"😉 says...

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (Pete)

Quoted message said:

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"" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

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.
aerospaceweb.orgyb49Open ↗

Quoted message said:

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. dfrc.nasa.govECNOpen ↗
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.

Quoted message said:

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.