7C  ::  Seven Compression Members for Kite, ParaGlider Hang Glider
Prentice Splitwing, Koman-Faust Dial Ship, Porta-Wing, Waspair Gryphon, Gnu-Porta-Glider,  ... and others (will post as time and inputs permit)
Various integrations, angles, choice of sweep, leading edge, etc.

Cable-braced airframe.  Crossboomless. No crossboom. No cross-boom.  No cross-spar. No bracing beam.

Bartolini and his patent    Discussion is welcome.

The seven compression members:  left beam, right beam, bowsprit, spine, kingpost, left queenpost, right queenpost
Notice that pairs may be integrated: left beam and right beam may be integrated.  Bow sprit and spine may be integrated.  Then does such form the crossboom?
Notice that the kingpost may split to two upper kingposts (forming then eight compression members; such was done in early 1900s).
The set of cable stays has its drag and handling costs and cares.  Yet there can be rigging and tote advantages.
 

Joe,                                              Dec. 18, 2011
I have two schemes WASP Gryphon Wing III (see attached).
I feel that the first and second Gryphon's were produced by Miles Wing (Miles
Handley). The Gryphon I used tip draggers on the wingtips for directional
control, and is a direct evolution of the forewing Miles Wing Gulp (no sweep
in leading edge, much like your Koman-Faust but with a T-tail added). The
Gryphon II has a different wing-tips (they look great in the photo detail), I
do not know if these tips are fixed or have some kind of control. And the
Gryphon III model is very similar to II but produced by Waspair. At the end
of 70s I saw landing in my village so I think it should be a Gryphon III... I
was totally surprised to see that structure so strange. I've always liked all
WASP wings.
Indeed, there is still much to explore...
best,
Pere



El Wednesday 28 December 2011 00:03:53 vàreu escriure:
 

• Have LB and RB as lines of high camber while have leading edge of sail be at cable, but foam bolstered. Have batten shaped ribs from the LE cable to past the LB and RB. Have BS angle down to facilitate.
• Reflex
• Streamlined stays?
• Thickened sail via foam layer, aerogel layer, or architected lattice.
• Safe-Splat incorporation from the BS to the bottoms of the two queenposts. See Safe-Splat.
• Angle-beam exploration for short and tight tote packs.
• Make a PW with floating join.  Have enhance LE, advanced batten ribs, and reflex system.  Add Safe-Splat.
•  

• Early Hang Gliding (The Flying Prentices) Part 1
• Early Hang Gliding (The Flying Prentices) Part 2
• Early Hang Gliding (The Flying Prentices) Part 3
• Early Hang Gliding (The Flying Prentices) Part 4

      
Miles Handley

• Early safety standard for the manufacture of hang gliders.
• Bought a Skyhook plan; built his first wing. Got into manufacturing of HGs.
• Miles Wings, Ltd.
• Gulp first, then Gryphon.
• Losing sites for distracting car drivers.
• Club, insurance, membership dues.
• Flypaper became Wings
• Scrutineer
• Problem of noise of motored gliders
• No kingpost Skyhook larger version by Miles Handley with blessing of Skyhook.
• First two Gulps: no battens. Then Gulp 3 had battens.
•  

Film of the 1978 Hang gliding meeting at Mere has turned up. Some shots of the Wasp Gryphon (bowsprit) which wins the distance event.        Tony

Some hang gliders use a bowsprit, rather than a spar to spread their wings. The bowsprit is formed by extending the keel tube about a metre beyond the leading edge of the wing. In 1879 a patent in England by F. W. Brearey was filed (followed by U.S. patenting in numbers 234947 and 320042) that taught bowsprit structure for flying machines. In the modern mid-1900s renaissance in hang gliding a Dial Soap TV commercial featured in 1973 a^[1] bowsprit cross-sparless hang glider. Other examples of bowsprit hang gliders were exampled in the gliders manufactured by Bautek in the 1980s^[2].

Hang Gliding fun with a 7C wing:

Ultralight Products Mosquito   with story and photos by Richard Cobb at his site.

Along these lines, I constructed and flew a bowsprit canard in the fall of 1975. It was configured to take advantage of the possibilities, unlike the one shown in the very interesting video. In the video, the main wing continues to derive its longitudinal pitch stability from a combination of sweepback and massive washout in the wing tips. The canard is a very minor player in this configuration, mostly just adding some additional drag and compromising the main wing somewhat due to very close downwash.

In the version I experimented with, the leading edges are straight, and whereas the wings were tapered, the wing was actually slightly swept forward on the 1/4 chord. It possessed a very high A/R for the day. The wing tips were twisted to prevent tip stall, but in this case the tips were therefore subtractors from pitch stability, not additive due to the sweep forward. So in this design, the canard was the sole stabilizing element, which is a better case scenario for this design exercise. It flew OK, but as is the case with all conventional canards, it compromises the total aircraft CsubL. Read that difficult to do a snap flare, or fly at the slowest speed possible for the wing loading. I don't have any videos, but might be able to find a picture or two somewhere. I seem to remember one that was taken to capture the resistance to normal flaring, let alone snap flaring, during a landing.

Gary Osoba         Tue, Mar  3 2009, 7:02:32 pm                                                        [ ]

 
An advanced version could be for HG flight.