Man power

[Norm Faith Jr.]

Not about stunt, but sort of a stunt. Real light build.

[Tim Just]

That’s really neat. 

[Dave Hull]

A great adventure. I really like how the piloting got better as they taught themselves--and then toward the end it looked like they needed a bigger test site....

Another bit of history:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=gossamer+condor+video&&view=detail&mid=E25469E7FC00700E768BE25469E7FC00700E768B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgossamer%2Bcondor%2Bvideo%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

[Dan McEntee]

    This group is going to have the same problem all the others did before McCready, and that is he can't turn.. His full flying rudder looks almost ineffective whenever he has to make a correction. When he tries to turn, the inboard wing is going to stall and fall. When he does get airborne, it looks like he is on the verge of a stall and he can't counter the puffs of wind he comes into. The Kramer Prize called for a figure 8 flight of 1 mile in length and passing over an obstacle of 10 feet high at the beginning and end of the flight. I don't think this gentleman is quite where he needs to be, but a good effort to at least get air borne.
  Type at you later,
   Dan McEntee

[Steve Berry]

Interesting.

A couple of questions, though.

1. What length of lines would you use on this?
2. What do you pull test it to?
3. Given the cost of balsa, is there perhaps a foam wing version?

Steve

[Chuck Matheny]

I wonder what it weighs and also if all of that super floppy wing span is beneficial

[Brett Buck]

I wonder what it weighs and also if all of that super floppy wing span is beneficial

  Unlikely. Flexing it takes energy that will not be recovered when it flexes back. But it's impractical to make it rigid, and still light enough.

    Brett

[John Carrodus]

OMG  From unmanned balloons to man powered flight in one week
Be afraid America
Be very afraid

[Chuck Matheny]

  Unlikely. Flexing it takes energy that will not be recovered when it flexes back. But it's impractical to make it rigid, and still light enough.

    Brett

Brett does it look to you that  they have the wing rigged to pivot [weathervane] oblique to flight path...?

If I was in charge of R&D you'ld see me out there with a hacksaw and a roll of duct tape....

[Brett Buck]

Brett does it look to you that  they have the wing rigged to pivot [weathervane] oblique to flight path...?

If I was in charge of R&D you'ld see me out there with a hacksaw and a roll of duct tape....

  I can sort of see what you are talking about, but I think it is an optical illusion. And I am not sure how that would work. So, no, I don't think so.

   Brett

[Dan McEntee]

I wonder what it weighs and also if all of that super floppy wing span is beneficial

   Check out the video of the aircraft and effort that won the Kremer Prize for a human powered flight of 1 mile distance in a figure 8 course, and passing over an obstacle of 10 feet in height at the start and at the end of the flight. The prize was first offered right after WW-2 I believe. Many, many attempts were made at it, with many of the aircraft, even the early ones, looking similar to this effort in the original post. Some of the early efforts were able  to fly beyond a mile, and I think the record for straight line flight is over 5 miles, but they could not turn. Paul McCready  took up the challenge and in August , 1977 he achieved the goal. McCready was a national soaring champion at an early age in the early 1940's, and was also a life long modeler. He was very competitive at indoor modeling, and it was that experience that help him solve the problem of making 180 degree turns, both left and righthand. McCready designed the airframe to be just enough to do the job, and it is pretty rigid. After winning the Kremer prize, then his team completed a crossing of the English Channel with the Gossamer Albatross, and then, another flight across the Channel from Paris to England in the Solar Challenger.  I don't know if there are an current prizes being offered for human powered flight these days, but compare the Condor to this effort.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee


             

[Chuck Matheny]

   Check out the video of the aircraft and effort that won the Kremer Prize for a human powered flight of 1 mile distance in a figure 8 course, and passing over an obstacle of 10 feet in height at the start and at the end of the flight. The prize was first offered right after WW-2 I believe. Many, many attempts were made at it, with many of the aircraft, even the early ones, looking similar to this effort in the original post. Some of the early efforts were able  to fly beyond a mile, and I think the record for straight line flight is over 5 miles, but they could not turn. Paul McCready  took up the challenge and in August , 1977 he achieved the goal. McCready was a national soaring champion at an early age in the early 1940's, and was also a life long modeler. He was very competitive at indoor modeling, and it was that experience that help him solve the problem of making 180 degree turns, both left and righthand. McCready designed the airframe to be just enough to do the job, and it is pretty rigid. After winning the Kremer prize, then his team completed a crossing of the English Channel with the Gossamer Albatross, and then, another flight across the Channel from Paris to England in the Solar Challenger.  I don't know if there are an current prizes being offered for human powered flight these days, but compare the Condor to this effort.
   Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee


             

Dan.. If I had to choose which plane to fly down to the store for a pack of cigarettes...it would be this one that looks so much lighter

Brett...I like the  Opical illusion Theory...but obliquely winged craft ARE "a thing".

[Brett Buck]

Brett...I like the  Opical illusion Theory...but obliquely winged craft ARE "a thing".

   I am aware of that, but none of them free-swivel (for very good reasons), and the obliquity would make the L/D worse.

   I think the illusion is that the shots where it looks oblique also cut off most of the wing, so you can't see the tips.

     Brett

[Fred Cronenwett]

Interesting.

A couple of questions, though.

1. What length of lines would you use on this?
2. What do you pull test it to?
3. Given the cost of balsa, is there perhaps a foam wing version?

Steve

I have flown large and heavy CL models over the years. Span is not a criteria for CL scale, weight is. but to have a model fly it would have a big wing span. I fly all of them on 65' lines mostly because that is all of the available paved circle we have. Just because it's big doesn't mean you want or need longer lines.

you would also need a take off dolly, use electric power with 2.4 Ghz for throttle control. battery would be located where the pilot sits. it could be done.

And only under calm wind conditions.

I would make the wing rigid out of foam with fiberglass skins. The foam itself if very flexible put a local main spar (vertical blade from top to bottom from 1/16" ply, and not full span) and fiberglass with 3/4 ounce glass cloth and finishing resin.

CL scale scale pulls to a 5G pull test with the speed that would fly at you wouldn't need a large pull test, 20 lbs max. The model would be light depending upon how large you built it.

[Dan McEntee]

  I can sort of see what you are talking about, but I think it is an optical illusion. And I am not sure how that would work. So, no, I don't think so.

   Brett

   I watched the video a couple of times to try and see what you guys are referring to, and I think I see the wing/fuselage connection or the fuselage itself flexing when he hits full rudder deflection, which is just about every time he has to make a correction, it takes full deflection. That really long wing just doesn't want to turn, so it gives at the weakest point. That super high aspect ratio wing and all that flexing is supposed to be the answer to a problem I guess, but to me it looks like it creates more problems than it solves. The flights later on in the video look like he's barely in any kind of real control, and if a puff of wind catches it and one wing gets high, it wants to roll off onto the other wing. If they were to reconfigure it into the tilting canard stabilizer like the Gossamer Condor used, it might have a small chance. That wing just has to fly too fast to be effective and they don't have enough leverage or force to control it. If you could look up and find video of any or all the past attempts that used a super high aspect ratio wing, you would see more or less the same results. Back when McCready was making his efforts, it seemed like there was something on TV all the time about previous efforts.  I never understood the whole oblique wing thing either, but I never looked into it very far. I guess the objective is to get the wing out of the way to decrease drag for higher speed flight, and get it out of the way for storage reasons on the ground?? There are already proven way s to do both. Flying at the speeds that human powered aircraft fly, I don't see any need or advantage to it either.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Steve Helmick]

I would bet that skewing the wing might be a viable alternative to ailerons. Maybe Howard would give his opinion via a haiku?  Steve

[Fred Cronenwett]

B-52 has spoilers to bank the airplane and turn. basically destroys the lift on that wing panel and causes drag.

[Dan McEntee]

B-52 has spoilers to bank the airplane and turn. basically destroys the lift on that wing panel and causes drag.

    Dial up that video of the B-52 banking and crashing at an airshow somewhere years ago. Still an example of "He who stalleth, falleth." This human powered stuff is a whole different world. The airplane in the original post has to fly too fast, and how much lift and energy is used up just to lift the outer portions of the wings even before the aircraft leaves the ground? Then you still have to turn. McCready got it right. Use the tilting stab to initiate the turn and then control it with washing in the inboard wing to to keep it up and to keep wings level. An indoor model such as a penny plane, EZ-B  or micro film model is trimmed the same way.  You just don't see any videos of any other successful efforts at it, and it makes me wonder some times how many others there were since then?? I don't know of any other major prizes being offered, and that is what usually brings interest to things like this. It's still an achievement, I think, to just lift off and make a flight of any considerable distance, but to make that turn and go back, that is the real achievement and shows real control.
   Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Miotch]

That's pretty cool !!  But the only thing I know for sure, is that I could build it both heavier AND weaker.

[Steve Helmick]

Spoilers work, but weigh a lot, and would move the mass outboard on a very light structure. If you flew FF much at all, you'd know that a wing with dihederal would increase the AOA on the forward side of the wing and decrease the AOA on the rearward side. Since such a light weight structure would surely flex spanwise, there is a 99.99% chance that there would be effective dihederal, whether built in or not.

A lot of FF gas guys do skew the wing for that reason, rather than building in wash-in or wash-out. Turning into the wash-in under power is a stable mode, while turning into wash-out is a crash waiting to happen.  Steve

[Chuck Matheny]

I would bet that skewing the wing might be a viable alternative to ailerons. Maybe Howard would give his opinion via a haiku?  Steve

Well if that plane is flying forward at 10 mph and a 20 mph side gust causes the wing to pivot slightly into that side gust....does that make  better use of that "free energy" to produce lift...?
Would the pilot be able to feel it in the pedals..?
Would the plane better negotiate  a side gust that's trying to roll the plane...?
That wing is so rubbery that once they went to the trouble to build it and then watch it underperform..that might have "Opened Their Minds" to try some new things.....

[Dan McEntee]

Spoilers work, but weigh a lot, and would move the mass outboard on a very light structure. If you flew FF much at all, you'd know that a wing with dihederal would increase the AOA on the forward side of the wing and decrease the AOA on the rearward side. Since such a light weight structure would surely flex spanwise, there is a 99.99% chance that there would be effective dihederal, whether built in or not.

A lot of FF gas guys do skew the wing for that reason, rather than building in wash-in or wash-out. Turning into the wash-in under power is a stable mode, while turning into wash-out is a crash waiting to happen.  Steve

      I got my "ins " and "outs" mixed up, and fixed my post. They washed in the inboard wing to keep the inboard wing lifting in turns, with a very subtle wing warping, just like on an indoor free flight model. Speed is the critical thing here. Keeping wings level is a critical thing here also. Hell, even Jimmy Doolittle figured out the the best immediate solution to turning the Gee Bee R-1 was to keep the turns flat! You can't see it in the video but the Condor was a heavily braced structure. I don't know what they used but the big main king post and two smaller posts out on the wings had bracing of some kind going out to stabilize the structure. Probably Kevlar since DuPont was a major sponsor of the effort. Just so small that the film couldn't pick it up. Flying that slow, in that kind of speed envelope, does it create any kind of drag that is significant? If so, that drag is a good trade off to keep the wing in a good profile to do it's job. I have flown quite a bit of free flight, and in trimming a model for a turn even on an outdoor model is pretty similar. Lots of simple tricks to help keep wings as flat as  possible, ranging from warping in some wash in at the wing tip trailing edge or like today, using a wedge to get the same effect to keep the inboard wing up and keep the wings level. In the old days, it was common to have the nose of the fuselage shaped into a curved, drooping profile so that if the model got upset and banked too much, the nose weight had a pendulum effect and rolled the fuselage back towards the outside of the turn, leveling the wings and keep the AOA across the whole wing as close to the same as possible so it doesn't spiral out of the thermal. I don't ever recall reading about or hearing about skewing a wing for trim purposes. On hand launched gliders, the tips are sometimes skewed a bit at a dihedral break to build in some wash out, then a wedge on the bottom of the trailing edge to keep the wing tip up at slower speeds. Most free flight models are trimmed for a higher speed portion of the flight at launch, either a power plant of some kind, catapult, arm power, then have to transition to a slow speed for thermal flight,  and the difference between the launch speed and the glide speed is significant. Thermal flight has to be very stable so the model doesn't get tossed out of the thermal, and then if it does, it needs to recover as quickly as possible. That's the realm , I think, that the human powered flight enthusiasts are operating in, but most don't have a back ground that includes that kind of thinking. McCready did, and that is why he succeeded.
  Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

[Chuck Matheny]

That's the realm , I think, that the human powered flight enthusiasts are operating in, but most don't have a back ground that includes that kind of thinking. McCready did, and that is why he succeeded.
  Type at you later,
    Dan McEntee

Howdy Dan.....yes it's amazing what having a well rounded background can do.
I've applied some of the skills that were learned building models to automotive restoration and cabinet building.....just to give a couple examples.