The incident I witnessed was an extremely brief instant of turbulence. This is a "nose-over" into a dive, and it only gets worse (a steeper dive), the longer the pilot is weightless. At the first hint of weightlessness, as in turbulence, the glider moves forward under thrust, while the pilot does not. This is just physics.Įxactly the same thing happens to a real HG, with the thrust line above the pilot. The pilot will remain motionless, while the glider goes around and around pilot, constantly "nosing over" as it does. The motor will pull the HG forward, and "nose over" around the pilot's mass. The pilot has maybe three times the mass of the glider, so the pilot will remain fairly stationary. Please imagine for a moment that you have your RC hang glider model inside the Space Station, and therefore weightless. Despite the cost, they will cost less than injuries (or worse) to a human body. There are some excellent HG models available that can be Radio Controlled, but they are not cheap. Make RC models of the project, if needed. Please do not try this, at least not with a living pilot. Nose-over of the wing is the biggest drawback for me when landing,
When the thrust is attached directly to the keel, the thrust vector is forward and upward, it will probably lift the nose up slightly depending on the speed, not down as winDfried says. It's really hard for me to understand why the thrust line doesn't have to be on the wing's keel. Thanks to Red and winDfried for the opinions and advice. In event of a lawsuit, any decent lawyer would discover what so many HG pilots know about this dangerous design. The dangerous power unit I saw was called Soarmaster, if you want to check the history.īottom line: Your tractor unit would be VERY hazardous to pilots' health, due to the thrust line being far above the pilot. There are electric versions of these types of powered harnesses, also. He (and everybody else) realized that the thrust line should go through the pilot, as with the (much safer) Mosquito or Doodlebug. (You CAN make your own luck, sometimes.) He pulled out of the dive, level at the altitude of the grass, then landed immediately with weeds still stuck in his wheels.
I once saw such an incident, and the pilot was lucky that he had wheels on the glider. If the glider gets into a dive that needs 70' of altitude to recover, but the dive starts at 50' of altitude, the pilot may need an ambulance (or worse). Such turbulence is very likely near the ground, such as when launching or landing. You can get weightlessness (or simply a weight reduction) in any turbulence. If the thrust line is above the center of mass (pilot), then any instant of weightlessness causes the glider to pull ahead of the pilot, nosing over into a very steep dive. It's been done, decades ago, and it is incredibly dangerous, if not fatal, when done that way. Thanks for your feedback in advance.algologic, I would like to hear as many opinions as possible from experienced pilots on how this would affect wing control as well as take-off and landing. Sun 2:46 amHello everyone, I came up with an idea to motorize a hang glider without triке, keeping the position and enjoyment of the pilot the same. Shock absorbing cone at the top of the motor.ĭouble throttle control (one for take-off / landing above and one for normal position). Quick-retractable folding blade with engine brake. rear battery pack max 7kg to maintain the balance of the wing). I have experience in the field of complete construction of propulsion systems and I would like to ask you to discuss only flying with such a system.īased on the experience I have the following characteristics are achievable: I have attached a photo mixed with a 3D model for a rough visualization of the idea. The reason I post here is that I have experience only with paragliding and parachutes, but never with a hang glider. Hello everyone, I came up with an idea to motorize a hang glider without triке, keeping the position and enjoyment of the pilot the same.
0 kommentar(er)
