Re: Skyting demolition
Posted: 2015/08/01 17:55:56 UTC
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2045
Owens Valley Resources
Reasonably good shot of the bullshit sumpin'-fer-nuthin' "floating crossbar" (keel) mutation in our early design evolutionary history related to Donnell Hewett "autocorrecting" "center-of-mass" bridle and Jeff Roberson's Lever Link proposal.
The "thinking" was that with the extended keel pocket and loose-on-the-ground sidewires that the keel (the attachment point for your suspension) would move sideways with a lateral control effort and the force vector would then run perpendicularly up to the wing - thus amplifying the offset for roll control.
The lateral French Connection device actually worked to do something effective in this department. Allowed you to eliminate a lot of the arcing involved in your pendular movement and more efficiently take advantage of your weight shift authority and available leverage (function of control frame length (height) to exert differential sidewires tension.
All this Rube Goldberg floating keel crap does is take the keel out of the plane of where it's supposed to be (and always was prior and always has been since) and throw a lot of junk in the airflow to substitute for what should be just ten inches of hang strap. The junk under the attachment to the center of the wing articulates/pendulums EXACTLY the same.
Back to a sane world of glider design...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7412/15775279044_f4672cea36_o.png
Coplanar keel, tightish sidewires, high control frame plus hang point raised above the keel. Turns just fine - as fine as you're gonna be able to do with a high L:D wing and no articulating control surfaces anyway.
Owens Valley Resources
1987/10/01, undoubtedly a UP Comet II.Rick Masters - 2015/07/31 20:16:29 UTC
Reasonably good shot of the bullshit sumpin'-fer-nuthin' "floating crossbar" (keel) mutation in our early design evolutionary history related to Donnell Hewett "autocorrecting" "center-of-mass" bridle and Jeff Roberson's Lever Link proposal.
The "thinking" was that with the extended keel pocket and loose-on-the-ground sidewires that the keel (the attachment point for your suspension) would move sideways with a lateral control effort and the force vector would then run perpendicularly up to the wing - thus amplifying the offset for roll control.
The lateral French Connection device actually worked to do something effective in this department. Allowed you to eliminate a lot of the arcing involved in your pendular movement and more efficiently take advantage of your weight shift authority and available leverage (function of control frame length (height) to exert differential sidewires tension.
All this Rube Goldberg floating keel crap does is take the keel out of the plane of where it's supposed to be (and always was prior and always has been since) and throw a lot of junk in the airflow to substitute for what should be just ten inches of hang strap. The junk under the attachment to the center of the wing articulates/pendulums EXACTLY the same.
Back to a sane world of glider design...
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7412/15775279044_f4672cea36_o.png
Coplanar keel, tightish sidewires, high control frame plus hang point raised above the keel. Turns just fine - as fine as you're gonna be able to do with a high L:D wing and no articulating control surfaces anyway.