of course you can push the rules to a point... However, I want a ballistic chute, not something I throw out after I kick the canopy out. All that takes time which enlarges the dead- zone. It's a personal choice. My life is worth a ballistic chute -- you have to make that call for yourself. There would be a huge penalty for making the glider water-landable -- I'm not interested in that -- if it had an engine, maybe, but it's been tried a LOT of times with spotty results at best (as far as ultralights are concerned). If I go to the trouble of putting an engine one it, it will be highly-functional, but that's just me. You can make your constant-
chord amphibious glider any way you like.

--- On Tue, 3/13/12, russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:
From: russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII -fuselage
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012, 12:42 AM




you dont need pontoons on your glider.....just make it water landable and feast on the weight alowance...with the balistic alowance..i dident say take no reserve...take a light weight hand thrown reserve..like a hang or paraglider....the pocket size balistic is just to be leagal and get yourselves the weight alowance.....and then put a model aroplane engine on it and get your engine weight alowance....civil aviation authorities are stoping guys like us......that vid of the glider braking is arkeopterex,yer?mass times velocity squered equls force......remember i said every kg you carry is 10 kg @ 10g?..ever time some one says there going to add this or that and it wont be much of a weight penalty,it drives me crazy......i dought the arkeopterex is ment for arobatics...that looked like the bottom of a loop...would it have broken if it wasent carying a balistic?how heavy was the balistic at the time of failure ?..18lb times 8? 9? 7? 6?...what was its aultimate failure in g's?,not how many g's it was designed to take in flyte.
ops im raving on...any way,hope my observations on getting you boys a bit of exra weight to put into your structure helps and also the observation that 70 kg in aus is as heavy as you can go before your into a diferent category.
russ.



On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Kenny Andersen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


yea Russ, we get weight for both chute, and pontoons. The chute is 25 Lb (but actually weighs around 18 Lb, and I can 't remember the pontoons, but I never saw pontoons on a sailplane -- more applicable to the standard ultralight


155 w/o engine
254 w/ engine
+25 w/ chute
+XX w/ pontoons


--- On Mon, 3/12/12, russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


From: russell wilson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: Re: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII -fuselage
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 10:45 PM





in australia there is no alowance for balistic shute or water landing gear........it has to come in at 70 kg..if its over its ment to be registered..if its not regestered then ..there is a penalty of 2 years inprisonment.
in the US do you get a water landig gear alowance?
make a pocket size balistic shute set of by a fire cracker to be legal and gobble up the weight alowance.

russ.


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Kenny Andersen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


yes Jeri -- the more information the better. As well it would be interesting to know whether there will be plans available, or some type of kit? 65 Kg is very impressive! PLEASE tell us more!

--- On Mon, 3/12/12, Jirka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:


From: Jirka <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII -fuselage
To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Date: Monday, March 12, 2012, 3:58 PM




Hello Friends,

I´ve got new info about Axels, but before of it - weight is somewhere between 83 to 89kg - seems close to XXTherms 80kg.

Actually is developed / builded new Axel powered with 10kW electric, with flaps, empty weight of 65kg without engine, max 200kg, chord 75cm, sink ,55m/s , 50 - 180km/h. I have pic of old/new airfoil, xfoil plot, some photos of building etc. - could place later if interests.

Regards,
Jeri

--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., russell wilson wrote:
>
> hi i too thaught the axel looked out of proportion for a 55kg
> aircraft......id like to see the confusion stay;)
>
> i think the swept wing is a step in the wrong direction....complexity and exra build time will will keep it a dream...if you want a sucses full aircraft it needs to be safe,easy and quick to build.....constant cord wing....1 rib...they dont want to stall a tip...no taper in the spar...you dont need twist...you dont have to change airfoil at any point in the wing.
>
> a plank type aircraft with a reflex airfoil,very short tail boom and
> fin...will give you what you want for under 70 kg.
>
> a cliped wing carbon dragon is an extremely good solution.for a heavier pilot.
>
> take the time to foot launch a hanglider..30 to 45 kg then your view on foot launching the dragon will be ..not practical..(it can be done and it can be landed on foot).the aircraft you guys are conseeving is already over 70 kg...if you think you can save weight by leaving the doors off then do so.
>
> hey if it comes out too heavy...stamp it with a 55kg sticker;)
> russ.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:36 AM, KarlS <kschneider@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> > Yes I agree 155 is to heavy to foot launch. However the ULF-1 is foot launch able. I think a steady wind to help lift the aircraft is what makes it possible. To do it once classifies it as footlaunchable.
> > I'm just saying to do it just to do it. Once. The pilot has to be on the cg like the Archaeopteryx then. I'm all for roll launching.
> >
> > A 100 % composite under 155 is going to be tough. I agree. I have a lot of samples of different layups. I measure my sample in 6" by 6" squares. 14 to 16 grams for a 6x6 is pretty light for composite sandwich layups. Do we have the sq ft surface area of the CD? Multiply that by 60 grams and you have a composite skin weight. That's without load carrying spars, etc.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> > In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Kenny Andersen
> > <kennyrayandersen@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 3/11/12, KarlS <kschneider@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: KarlS <kschneider@>
> >
> > > Subject: [Carbondragonbuildersandpilots] Re: CDII -fuselage
> > > To: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
> > > Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012, 8:25 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Karl â€" I don’t think you are missing anything â€" I think
> >
> > > their boom looks longer, so whatever the weight is it has more > > > leverage (less weight to balance the moments), so I’m not
> > > sure how much more > > > it weighs, and from their sheet, I’m > > > seeing conflicting numbers on weight â€" Ib don’t think the
> > > 55KG number is correct and I’m not sure where that came
> > > from. In the Axel Word doc in the files section it says 89 Kg > > > is the empty weight â€" I believe that’s possible…
> > >
> > >
> > > You really have to think light-weight here â€" I’m not sure
> > > it’s
> > > possible to do it like the Axel and make the 70 Kg ultralight
> > > weight â€" In fact
> > > I’m pretty sure you can’t. Look at the Archaeopteryx
> > > â€" there is no canopy, very little structure for the pod
> > > etc. It’s
> > a bit short of the 15 pounds though, so
> > > I think we could get some kind of pod â€" just don’t know
> > > whether it can be a
> > > contoured composite one or a frame and skin.Â
> > > Of course, you can do it either way, but the weight won’t be > > > the same…
> >
> > > I think 155 Lb is too heavy to foot launch.