|
Welcome,
Guest
|
TOPIC:
Re: Archaeopteryx website 08 Dec 2013 23:50 #360
|
Sorry Phil. I thought it was Kenny that posted about the Mylar.
Anyhow.. Yes it can be done and has been done. I believe the product is made in Cleveland, Ohio. Matt has the data specs on the covering. It is incredibly strong. Karl --- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "Philip Lardner" > > That's pretty much why I started looking at the CD in earnest - my lust and > avarice for owning an Archaeopteryx was exceeded only by the volume of drool > my keyboard was absorbing as I pawed the screen looking at the early > prototype... oh, that and my overdraft. > > The performance characteristics of the two gliders are actually pretty > similar CD = 25:1 and 100fpm sink rate while the Archaeopteryx = 28:1 and > 98fpm sink rate. The latter, unfortunately, requires the selling of both my > kidneys and also my family into slavery (I can live with that, but I'm > rather fond of my kidneys!) The Carbon Dragon, on the other hand, I could > pay for very easily. Something of a no-brainer. > > If we accept the basic design of the flight surfaces (wings - tail boom - > empennage - H-stab) needs little updating then all that's left is to decide > how we go about hanging the pilot underneath it. The existing pilot pod has > a couple of big drawbacks - pilot's highly restricted field of view and the > limited ability to move the CG due to the wing spar. > > I've started researching the use of clear Mylar film as a wing covering > (used on the prototype Swift) that would allow the pilot to look through the > wing. The black carbon parts could be infused with a white pigment (problems > here, apparently) or simply sprayed white to reflect heat (or at least > reduce heat absorption in hot sun) or even cover the leading edges with > reflective aluminised Mylar film underneath the clear wing covering. > > My thoughts have been moving in the direction of completely redesigning the > pilot pod to something along the lines of the Archaeopteryx, the Swift and > the Millennium, which are all roughly similar; all hang the pilot further > below the wing than in the CD. With the pilot in a more reclined position > and with his head below the wing, you are now free to shift the CG without > obstruction. No heavy duty structural members are required for this - you > simply need something strong enough to take the pilot's weight... and take > the shock loads of ground handling and landing. > > I will *probably* build my CD more or less to the plans (pod included) but > in such a way that I can remove the pod from the tail boom at a later date > and experiment with different pod designs. For now, I'm continuing to > concentrate on building the wings. I have the female moulds and the foam > cores for all the wing ribs (aft of the spar) completed and ready for > lamination, and I'll start work on the D-cell rib moulds shortly. It's St. > Paddy's weekend here this weekend... and it looks like we'll also have epic > post-frontal XC skies to boot, so not much hope of making progress until > after that! > > Phil. > > _____ > > From: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.] On Behalf Of Kenny > Andersen > Sent: 15 March 2012 22:17 > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: Archaeopteryx website > > > > > > I was looking at the Archaeopteryx again last night. I agree with some > other posts that it's likely the forward sweeping of the CD wing is not > enough to compensate for the CG. Looking at the Archaeopteryx , which as > you said is pretty much functionally where we want to go, I think the pilot > position shows there is no way [practically] that you could putt he pilot in > the 'traditional' sailplane location -- especially if there is any > weight-saving going on in the aft. Would anybody have any grief shooting > for a home-brew of the Archaeopteryx? I think we all pretty much agree it > cost more than any of us are willing to pay (not that it' not nice and > all!), but it is pretty sweet. I think a composite CD wing and a light pod > could make the 155 (70.3 Kg) and then the fairing could be left off or added > as desired... thoughts? > > --- On Thu, 3/15/12, Bill Jackson <billj@...> wrote: > > > > > From: Bill Jackson <billj@...> > Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: Archaeopteryx website > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > Cc: "KarlS" <kschneider@...> > Date: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 1:43 PM > > > > > The Archaeopteryx is a good example of an optimized Carbon Dragon and as > such, is a great template to use as a goal. Unfortunately, at $80,000, it is > like pursuing a supermodel with the soul of Mother Teresa. Desirable but > ultimately unobtainable and even frustrating to us mere mortals who must > find what is important to us, what we can obtain, and pursue our happiness > in that. Sorry for the buzz-kill. > > Billj3cub |
|
Please Log in to join the conversation. |
