Re: [bolger] Re: Dipping lug rig for Fiddler II
> Bolger shows a swim platform on each side. They could beI have no doubt that Bolger was thinking of motor
> made bigger and a bit closer to the motor.
>
> hal, liking FII better all the time.
access when he designed those stern platforms.
I see from the drawing, that they cannot really
be much bigger, as they need to clear the swing
of the motor head, [which Bolger drew in with
dashed lines.]
The double, parbuckled Tortoises, are a real fun
idea, as a platform for waterplay. Storing the
spars of the lanteen rigs would be a challange.
Perhaps balanced lug sails for the Tortoises'
would be easier to stow.
On Oct 26, 2004, at 11:31 AM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
made bigger and a bit closer to the motor.
hal, liking FII better all the time.
>Bolger shows a swim platform on each side. They could be
>> The FII motor position is not best placed for praying over the
>> engine, hoping to get it to run.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Good point, though I suppose you could have four
> stragtegically placed cleats, to lash the corners of your
> Tortoise punts to make a 'work platform' back there.
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391b.gif
made bigger and a bit closer to the motor.
hal, liking FII better all the time.
> The FII motor position is not best placed for praying over theGood point, though I suppose you could have four
> engine, hoping to get it to run.
>
> Peter
stragtegically placed cleats, to lash the corners of your
Tortoise punts to make a 'work platform' back there.
http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391b.gif
> Part of what is in my mind about Fiddler II is that I imageThe FII motor position is not best placed for praying over the
> using a 'near junk' cheapo old outboard motor on it,..
engine, hoping to get it to run.
Peter
> dbaldnz <oink@...> wrote:A flat bum is ont a fatal flaw, for Fast Brick at least, which has such.
> With her straight run and flat bum, I think she would drag her
> backside like Bette Middler.
It is interesting to speculate why Bolger would flaunt conventions
when designing Fast Brick with a straight run aft. I guess they
were willing to compromise hydrodynamics when the purpose of
the boat was 'life raft' first, speed boat second, sailboat third.
Part of what is in my mind about Fiddler II is that I image
using a 'near junk' cheapo old outboard motor on it, and in
my experience those things don't always run. So, an auxillary
sail might be handy at times, even it if doesn't work that well.
Also, looking at Fiddler II as a take off point for an experiment,
I don't see why the after corners shouldn't be raised up 9" or so,
giving more rocker towards 'Superbrick'. The box keel would extend
back flat.
One of PCB's forgotten designs, never built as far as I know, is
Economy Motorsailer out of The Folding Schooner.
In my view, it's a viable compromise, because the hull should sail
well and, with a 40 hp outboard, would semi-plane, according to
Bolger, at 12 to 15 kts. It's 25'10" x 7'8", strip-planked and round-
bilged.
With what to me looks like a makeshift spritsail rig with a jib and a
single leeboard, in my view the compromise is tipped towards it being
a light-displacement motorboat with sails.
In some ways quite similar is Flying Splinter, never built either, as
far as I know. It's 29.5' x 6.86' and can be seen in "30-odd Boats".
With a deeply veed chine hull and a 135 hp outboard, it would be a
lot faster than the Economy Motorsailer. It's drawn with a large
dipping lugsail. There is no centreboard or leeboard, and a steering
oar would be used under sail.
Both are somewhat larger and more complicated that what you had in
mind, Bruce.
Howard
Economy Motorsailer out of The Folding Schooner.
In my view, it's a viable compromise, because the hull should sail
well and, with a 40 hp outboard, would semi-plane, according to
Bolger, at 12 to 15 kts. It's 25'10" x 7'8", strip-planked and round-
bilged.
With what to me looks like a makeshift spritsail rig with a jib and a
single leeboard, in my view the compromise is tipped towards it being
a light-displacement motorboat with sails.
In some ways quite similar is Flying Splinter, never built either, as
far as I know. It's 29.5' x 6.86' and can be seen in "30-odd Boats".
With a deeply veed chine hull and a 135 hp outboard, it would be a
lot faster than the Economy Motorsailer. It's drawn with a large
dipping lugsail. There is no centreboard or leeboard, and a steering
oar would be used under sail.
Both are somewhat larger and more complicated that what you had in
mind, Bruce.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391a.gif
>
> I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding a
> sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
> Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
With her straight run and flat bum, I think she would drag her
backside like Bette Middler.
backside like Bette Middler.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391a.gif
>
> I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding a
> sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
> Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
>
> While motoring, on a fast plane, the mast would step
> through a centerline hole in the top deck. The 16' foot mast
> (and yard with sail), would rest in a cradle above the
> 'drain channel' strut near the companionway. The deck plate
> for the mast step could be one of those round threaded
> inspection plates, for watertightness. In the rain, you would motor.
>
> The rudder, mounted to the port side of the motor mount,
> would swing up and pivot sideways, laying flush with the
> transom when not in use.
>
> The pivoting leeboards are stolen from Fast motorsailer.
>
> There would be no luff pennant, just a shackle, to two
> deck rings, port and starboard, at the forward edge of
> the top deck.
>
> Also, a shallow cutwater, similar to that on Fast Brick,
> would add some buoyancy under the forward berth.
>
> A handy boat, I think, to explore the 1000 miles of
> waterway in the Sacramento delta.
On Oct 25, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
Now we have someplace for the tackle to raise and lower the
POP top.
FII is more elegant than Superbrick and A better size than
Watervan.
The rudder could be attached to the steering system for the
outboard like some fishermen do with their kickers.
hal
>Makes sense to me. I have liked FII since I first saw it.
>http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391a.gif
>
> I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding a
> sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
> Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
Now we have someplace for the tackle to raise and lower the
POP top.
FII is more elegant than Superbrick and A better size than
Watervan.
The rudder could be attached to the steering system for the
outboard like some fishermen do with their kickers.
hal
> Have you looked into the original Fast Motorsailor?Yes, of course, a hundred times.:)
> Peter
Fiddler II has the advantage of being only 4 feet tall,
(and 6'8" wide x 15'10" long) fitting better on a trailer,
and in a garage.
Fiddler II also has that top deck, for a lounging/swimming
platform, plus a two-some berth inside.
Yes, the sail rig is ridiculous, but not much more ridiculous than
the sail rig on Fast Brick. When in a hurry, burn the gas,
when simply-messing-about-not-in-a-hurry, use the sail.
=== what I meant to write ==
While sailing, the mast would step
through a centerline hole in the top deck.
While motoring, the mast would rest in
a cradle on the top deck.
While sailing, the mast would step
through a centerline hole in the top deck.
While motoring, the mast would rest in
a cradle on the top deck.
> I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding aProbably whatever you do between bouts of Fiddler II obsession makes
> sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
> Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
more sense. However...
Granted FII has about the best cabin for the least material in the
entire PCB canon, I think she is not a likely candidate for a
sailboat. The combination of fast speed under power and sailing
capability is rare for technical reasons, but also for usage
reasons. It's emotionally hard to go slow in a boat that can go
fast, so when would you sail and why? How much cabin do you
want/need?
Have you looked into the original Fast Motorsailor?
Peter
http://hallman.org/bolger/391/391a.gif
I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding a
sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
While motoring, on a fast plane, the mast would step
through a centerline hole in the top deck. The 16' foot mast
(and yard with sail), would rest in a cradle above the
'drain channel' strut near the companionway. The deck plate
for the mast step could be one of those round threaded
inspection plates, for watertightness. In the rain, you would motor.
The rudder, mounted to the port side of the motor mount,
would swing up and pivot sideways, laying flush with the
transom when not in use.
The pivoting leeboards are stolen from Fast motorsailer.
There would be no luff pennant, just a shackle, to two
deck rings, port and starboard, at the forward edge of
the top deck.
Also, a shallow cutwater, similar to that on Fast Brick,
would add some buoyancy under the forward berth.
A handy boat, I think, to explore the 1000 miles of
waterway in the Sacramento delta.
I keep coming back to the feasablity of adding a
sail rig to Fiddler II. Sort a compromise between,
Fast Brick, Superbrick, Fast Motorsailer and Watervan.
While motoring, on a fast plane, the mast would step
through a centerline hole in the top deck. The 16' foot mast
(and yard with sail), would rest in a cradle above the
'drain channel' strut near the companionway. The deck plate
for the mast step could be one of those round threaded
inspection plates, for watertightness. In the rain, you would motor.
The rudder, mounted to the port side of the motor mount,
would swing up and pivot sideways, laying flush with the
transom when not in use.
The pivoting leeboards are stolen from Fast motorsailer.
There would be no luff pennant, just a shackle, to two
deck rings, port and starboard, at the forward edge of
the top deck.
Also, a shallow cutwater, similar to that on Fast Brick,
would add some buoyancy under the forward berth.
A handy boat, I think, to explore the 1000 miles of
waterway in the Sacramento delta.
I'm also surprised that no one mentioned the autogyro.
Bryant
Bryant
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
<snip>
> I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Bruce H /Bolger
homebuilt
> aircraft carrier proposal in this thread. You were all wondering
how I
> was going to get back on topic huh.
>
> HJ
The hang gliding community is alive and well, the performance is good
enough that they can be called hang sailplanes in the right conditions.
You don't hear so much about them because the safety record has
improved. Mostly the news doesn't cover people just having fun and not
killing themselves.
I was down on the shore at Ft Ord California a decade and a half ago
pulling butts in a rifle match. Their was a cease fire call and here
came a hang glider ridge soaring right down the cliff edge in total
silence with a seagull on each wing. I watched him go by with my mouth
hanging open, there was no doubt which of us was having more fun.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Bruce H /Bolger homebuilt
aircraft carrier proposal in this thread. You were all wondering how I
was going to get back on topic huh.
HJ
Paul W. Esterle wrote:
enough that they can be called hang sailplanes in the right conditions.
You don't hear so much about them because the safety record has
improved. Mostly the news doesn't cover people just having fun and not
killing themselves.
I was down on the shore at Ft Ord California a decade and a half ago
pulling butts in a rifle match. Their was a cease fire call and here
came a hang glider ridge soaring right down the cliff edge in total
silence with a seagull on each wing. I watched him go by with my mouth
hanging open, there was no doubt which of us was having more fun.
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the Bruce H /Bolger homebuilt
aircraft carrier proposal in this thread. You were all wondering how I
was going to get back on topic huh.
HJ
Paul W. Esterle wrote:
>The Mitchell Wing was a very successful flying wing hang glider. I think it
>is still available under another name.
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Mitchell Wing was a very successful flying wing hang glider. I think it
is still available under another name.
Paul
is still available under another name.
Paul
I went through USAF water survival back in the 70's. They taught
water parachute landings using an old LST with a plywood deck like a
mini aircraft carrier. We would stand on the deck facing into the
wind with our parachute on the deck behind us. A big speedboat would
pull along side and pass us the end of a ling line.
The line would be cliped to our harness chest ring. The speedboat
would move ahead paying out line while men behind you lifted the
chute up to fill it with air. When the line came tight the speedboat
opened the trottle and you started to run. Usually you were up in
about 2 or 3 steps. Of course when you cleared the deck, they would
always chop the throttle until you got your feet wet, then take off
again. When you got up high they opened the release at the chest
ring and the line fell away leaving you to parachute into Biscanyne
Bay.
water parachute landings using an old LST with a plywood deck like a
mini aircraft carrier. We would stand on the deck facing into the
wind with our parachute on the deck behind us. A big speedboat would
pull along side and pass us the end of a ling line.
The line would be cliped to our harness chest ring. The speedboat
would move ahead paying out line while men behind you lifted the
chute up to fill it with air. When the line came tight the speedboat
opened the trottle and you started to run. Usually you were up in
about 2 or 3 steps. Of course when you cleared the deck, they would
always chop the throttle until you got your feet wet, then take off
again. When you got up high they opened the release at the chest
ring and the line fell away leaving you to parachute into Biscanyne
Bay.
I was aware of control problems. There have been several flying wing
experiments, including one or two large multi-engine aircraft, and
all have been difficult to control without elevators and rudder at
the aft end of a fuselage -- they were just too unstable. No doubt a
computer-controlled autopilot would help, but it might be difficult
to implement on a hang-glider...
Howard
experiments, including one or two large multi-engine aircraft, and
all have been difficult to control without elevators and rudder at
the aft end of a fuselage -- they were just too unstable. No doubt a
computer-controlled autopilot would help, but it might be difficult
to implement on a hang-glider...
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "k_s_oneill" <K_S_ONeill@y...> wrote:
> You don't want to try to invent this on your own, hang glider
towing
> killed a lot of people before they got it right.
>
> The problem was in how one steers a hang glider; it's by weight
> shift, no with control surfaces, as in a conventional plane. That
> meant that one could get a little nose up or nose down and, almost
> before you noticed it, be too far gone for the weight shift
> correction to be enough. Very unstable.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
killed a lot of people before they got it right.
The problem was in how one steers a hang glider; it's by weight
shift, no with control surfaces, as in a conventional plane. That
meant that one could get a little nose up or nose down and, almost
before you noticed it, be too far gone for the weight shift
correction to be enough. Very unstable.
Happily, new towing methods are supposed to be very safe. Google
on "hang glider towing" and you'll find reams of data.
Returning to the original question, a powered glider only needs wind
over the wings to take off, not wheels rolling. Put the thing on the
roof, face the boat into the wind, and get up to a reasonable
apparent wind, and off you go. Landing seems trickier. Perhaps
pontoons, to land on the water and then be lifted aboard? I don't
know. Landing back on the boat, that would be a trick...
Kevin
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>glider,
> What I don't know is whether the speed at which the tethered
> with its wing stalled, will generate enough lift is going to beless
> than the speed at which a glider, with its wing flying, willgenerate
> enough lift. Someone who has studied aerodynamics formally wouldknow
> the answer to that one.You don't want to try to invent this on your own, hang glider towing
>
> There are also control issues -- think of the long tail needed on a
> children's kite to keep it stable.
killed a lot of people before they got it right.
The problem was in how one steers a hang glider; it's by weight
shift, no with control surfaces, as in a conventional plane. That
meant that one could get a little nose up or nose down and, almost
before you noticed it, be too far gone for the weight shift
correction to be enough. Very unstable.
Happily, new towing methods are supposed to be very safe. Google
on "hang glider towing" and you'll find reams of data.
Returning to the original question, a powered glider only needs wind
over the wings to take off, not wheels rolling. Put the thing on the
roof, face the boat into the wind, and get up to a reasonable
apparent wind, and off you go. Landing seems trickier. Perhaps
pontoons, to land on the water and then be lifted aboard? I don't
know. Landing back on the boat, that would be a trick...
Kevin
If you look at the curves for various airfoils, the "coefficient of lift"
drops precipitously after stall. The book I have on airfoils doesn't show
any data beyond this point. Typical is 15 to 17 degrees angle of attack
which seems equate to about 25 to 35 mph air speed, perhaps slower for the
flying parachute type. BUT, the chutes need to be laid out very carefully
before starting the takeoff run. I don't think there's enough beam on most
small boats for that.
In any aircraft, you don't want to get far away from the ground without at
least 30% more airspeed than that minimum.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
drops precipitously after stall. The book I have on airfoils doesn't show
any data beyond this point. Typical is 15 to 17 degrees angle of attack
which seems equate to about 25 to 35 mph air speed, perhaps slower for the
flying parachute type. BUT, the chutes need to be laid out very carefully
before starting the takeoff run. I don't think there's enough beam on most
small boats for that.
In any aircraft, you don't want to get far away from the ground without at
least 30% more airspeed than that minimum.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> What I don't know is whether the speed at which the tethered glider,
> with its wing stalled, will generate enough lift is going to be less
> than the speed at which a glider, with its wing flying, will generate
> enough lift. Someone who has studied aerodynamics formally would know
> the answer to that one.
>
> There are also control issues -- think of the long tail needed on a
> children's kite to keep it stable.
>
> Howard
The problem is, once that glider is loaded up with the
appropriate ordinance, say two rockeye clusters and
some sidewinder A-A missles, the takeoff weight would
make the lift off speed be far in excess of the boats
max forward speed..........perhaps 20 or 30 skyrockets
taped together in a sort of home made jet-assisted
take off set-up.......
--- "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@...> wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
appropriate ordinance, say two rockeye clusters and
some sidewinder A-A missles, the takeoff weight would
make the lift off speed be far in excess of the boats
max forward speed..........perhaps 20 or 30 skyrockets
taped together in a sort of home made jet-assisted
take off set-up.......
--- "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@...> wrote:
> Method 1, Yes. Method 2, No!http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
>
> A rope on the front of an aircraft will not let if
> fly
> below its stall speed. A rope and a propeller are
> essentially the same thing. You need to have enough
> speed to get lift or it won't lift. Now a big kite
> might have a lower stall speed and it could haul the
> plane up for dropping.
>
> Gene T.
>
> --- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > If the boat was moving fast enough, I guess it
> could
> > take off
> > vertically. The minimum speed for this would be, I
> > suppose, the stall
> > speed of the 'plane.
> >
> > Another option might be to tether it, so that it
> > would rise up like a
> > kite, well below its stall speed. Once it had
> > reached a sufficient
> > height it could be released and made to dive to
> pick
> > up sufficient
> > speed to fly untethered. You'd launch off the
> stern
> > rather than the
> > bow.
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis"
> > <futabachan@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe the fumes from the Rust Check on my Aztek
> > are getting to me,
> > but
> > > does anyone know how much of a takeoff/landing
> run
> > a powered hang
> > > glider needs? The bow cockpit of the Insolent
> 60
> > looks like it
> > might
> > > hold one or more, folded up, and with the masts
> > down and the
> > > centerline hatches shut, there's a 30' long flat
> > flight deck
> > > available....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > --------------------~-->
> > $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> >
>
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> >__________________________________
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> > flogging dead horses
> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no
> 'Ed,
> > thanks, Fred' posts
> > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your
> posts,
> > and snip away
> > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> > Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > - Open discussion:
> >bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
What I don't know is whether the speed at which the tethered glider,
with its wing stalled, will generate enough lift is going to be less
than the speed at which a glider, with its wing flying, will generate
enough lift. Someone who has studied aerodynamics formally would know
the answer to that one.
There are also control issues -- think of the long tail needed on a
children's kite to keep it stable.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
with its wing stalled, will generate enough lift is going to be less
than the speed at which a glider, with its wing flying, will generate
enough lift. Someone who has studied aerodynamics formally would know
the answer to that one.
There are also control issues -- think of the long tail needed on a
children's kite to keep it stable.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> Ok, I'll buy that. A rope is a very big engine and
> propeller....
Ok, I'll buy that. A rope is a very big engine and
propeller....
Gene T.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
propeller....
Gene T.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
>
> Any wing, or a sail, will generate lift well beyond
> its stall angle.
> It's just that the drag increases more than the
> lift. A powerful boat
> pulling it along would overcome the drag. An
> ordinary kite flies
> stalled all the time.
>
> Think about standing up in a boat moving at, say, 10
> kt. If you held
> up a sheet of plywood square on to the wind, there
> would be
> tremendous drag. If you angle the sheet, say, 10
> degrees forward,
> there will still be tremendous drag, but there will
> also be a small
> lift component. The plywood is not flying i.e. it is
> stalled, but
> there is still some lift. If you tethered the sheet
> adequately, it
> would tend to rise in the wind. This is what I had
> in mind for the
> powered glider.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T."
> <goldranger02-boats@y...>
> wrote:
> > Method 1, Yes. Method 2, No!
> >
> > A rope on the front of an aircraft will not let if
> fly
> > below its stall speed. A rope and a propeller are
> > essentially the same thing. You need to have
> enough
> > speed to get lift or it won't lift. Now a big
> kite
> > might have a lower stall speed and it could haul
> the
> > plane up for dropping.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
> Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
Any wing, or a sail, will generate lift well beyond its stall angle.
It's just that the drag increases more than the lift. A powerful boat
pulling it along would overcome the drag. An ordinary kite flies
stalled all the time.
Think about standing up in a boat moving at, say, 10 kt. If you held
up a sheet of plywood square on to the wind, there would be
tremendous drag. If you angle the sheet, say, 10 degrees forward,
there will still be tremendous drag, but there will also be a small
lift component. The plywood is not flying i.e. it is stalled, but
there is still some lift. If you tethered the sheet adequately, it
would tend to rise in the wind. This is what I had in mind for the
powered glider.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
It's just that the drag increases more than the lift. A powerful boat
pulling it along would overcome the drag. An ordinary kite flies
stalled all the time.
Think about standing up in a boat moving at, say, 10 kt. If you held
up a sheet of plywood square on to the wind, there would be
tremendous drag. If you angle the sheet, say, 10 degrees forward,
there will still be tremendous drag, but there will also be a small
lift component. The plywood is not flying i.e. it is stalled, but
there is still some lift. If you tethered the sheet adequately, it
would tend to rise in the wind. This is what I had in mind for the
powered glider.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gene T." <goldranger02-boats@y...>
wrote:
> Method 1, Yes. Method 2, No!
>
> A rope on the front of an aircraft will not let if fly
> below its stall speed. A rope and a propeller are
> essentially the same thing. You need to have enough
> speed to get lift or it won't lift. Now a big kite
> might have a lower stall speed and it could haul the
> plane up for dropping.
Method 1, Yes. Method 2, No!
A rope on the front of an aircraft will not let if fly
below its stall speed. A rope and a propeller are
essentially the same thing. You need to have enough
speed to get lift or it won't lift. Now a big kite
might have a lower stall speed and it could haul the
plane up for dropping.
Gene T.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
A rope on the front of an aircraft will not let if fly
below its stall speed. A rope and a propeller are
essentially the same thing. You need to have enough
speed to get lift or it won't lift. Now a big kite
might have a lower stall speed and it could haul the
plane up for dropping.
Gene T.
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/_0TolB/TM
>
> If the boat was moving fast enough, I guess it could
> take off
> vertically. The minimum speed for this would be, I
> suppose, the stall
> speed of the 'plane.
>
> Another option might be to tether it, so that it
> would rise up like a
> kite, well below its stall speed. Once it had
> reached a sufficient
> height it could be released and made to dive to pick
> up sufficient
> speed to fly untethered. You'd launch off the stern
> rather than the
> bow.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis"
> <futabachan@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the fumes from the Rust Check on my Aztek
> are getting to me,
> but
> > does anyone know how much of a takeoff/landing run
> a powered hang
> > glider needs? The bow cockpit of the Insolent 60
> looks like it
> might
> > hold one or more, folded up, and with the masts
> down and the
> > centerline hatches shut, there's a 30' long flat
> flight deck
> > available....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
If the boat was moving fast enough, I guess it could take off
vertically. The minimum speed for this would be, I suppose, the stall
speed of the 'plane.
Another option might be to tether it, so that it would rise up like a
kite, well below its stall speed. Once it had reached a sufficient
height it could be released and made to dive to pick up sufficient
speed to fly untethered. You'd launch off the stern rather than the
bow.
Howard
vertically. The minimum speed for this would be, I suppose, the stall
speed of the 'plane.
Another option might be to tether it, so that it would rise up like a
kite, well below its stall speed. Once it had reached a sufficient
height it could be released and made to dive to pick up sufficient
speed to fly untethered. You'd launch off the stern rather than the
bow.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...> wrote:
>
> Maybe the fumes from the Rust Check on my Aztek are getting to me,
but
> does anyone know how much of a takeoff/landing run a powered hang
> glider needs? The bow cockpit of the Insolent 60 looks like it
might
> hold one or more, folded up, and with the masts down and the
> centerline hatches shut, there's a 30' long flat flight deck
> available....
Maybe the fumes from the Rust Check on my Aztek are getting to me, but
does anyone know how much of a takeoff/landing run a powered hang
glider needs? The bow cockpit of the Insolent 60 looks like it might
hold one or more, folded up, and with the masts down and the
centerline hatches shut, there's a 30' long flat flight deck
available....
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
does anyone know how much of a takeoff/landing run a powered hang
glider needs? The bow cockpit of the Insolent 60 looks like it might
hold one or more, folded up, and with the masts down and the
centerline hatches shut, there's a 30' long flat flight deck
available....
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>