Moderator: Mike Everman
If nothing else, it would be a somewhat simpler way of testing the prototype.I saw something on the net about a towable wig, I think it was still conceptual though. The idea was to pull it behind a boat like a tube or kneeboard. I though it was a pretty cool idea. I think it was called the "manta ray", as its shape was very similar to one.
Anders Troberg wrote:If nothing else, it would be a somewhat simpler way of testing the prototype.I saw something on the net about a towable wig, I think it was still conceptual though. The idea was to pull it behind a boat like a tube or kneeboard. I though it was a pretty cool idea. I think it was called the "manta ray", as its shape was very similar to one.
Besides, I've always found the shape of the manta ray very inspiring for some kind of aircraft design.
It appears to me that the wingtip is carefully designed for that type of action, like a hydroplaning or hydrofoiling effect. Only the rear edge of the tip makes planing contact with the water. This makes good sense if you can design it in; it relies on the positive angle of attack of the wing section during flight.El-Kablooey wrote:go watch the video at the link I posted above, he drags his wingtips in the water during a turn with no ill effects.
Larry Cottrill wrote:It appears to me that the wingtip is carefully designed for that type of action, like a hydroplaning or hydrofoiling effect. Only the rear edge of the tip makes planing contact with the water. This makes good sense if you can design it in; it relies on the positive angle of attack of the wing section during flight.El-Kablooey wrote:go watch the video at the link I posted above, he drags his wingtips in the water during a turn with no ill effects.
I too like this idea very much, and wish you the best of success. This is really an efficient and sensible mode of transportation, although sensible only in terms of water as you've said earlier. Or a dry lakebed re Ben's comment.
L Cottrill
you mean like this:El-Kablooey wrote: Also the airfoil should be shaped different from normal aircraft. The bottom should have a slight "s" shape to it, convcave at the front and convex at the rear. This helps to raise the pressure at the rear of the wing, otherwise you need a whopping big tailplane like 1/3 of the wing area to stabilize the thing.
The short span favors simplified wing construction. It's easy to calculate the strength necessary, with some simple formulas.Bruno Ogorelec wrote:Someone (Anders?) complained about poor wing construction. May I suggest we try going even further in that direction?
Bill, you have extensive background in hang gliding. Why shouldn’t a fabric wing serve just as well under WIG conditions as it does in ordinary flight? Surely the hang-glider wing construction is the simplest and cheapest available, yet does its job remarkably well.
In fact, I have a suspicion that it might be even better in WIG than in free air, because – as far as I can see -- its duty resembles certain types of sailboat wings more than it does aircraft wings.
Or we could employ the so-called Princeton Wing. It was developed at Princeton in the 1970s in a project aimed at development of a better windmill. Of course, windmill rotor arms are nothing but wings. Or sails. Same thing, more or less.
A Princeton Wing is a simple tubular 'sock' made out of Dacron fabric. It is pulled over a stiff tube that serves as the leading edge of the wing and a cable (stretched tight) that serves as the trailing edge. The simplest construction you can think of. The fabric is not attached either to the leading edge tube or to the trailing edge cable, but is free to slide a little bit over both.
The pelican is a real aerodynamic wonder, IMHO.Mark wrote:I like to watch the pelicans glide low over the bay, they can go quite a distance without flapping, no more than 2 feet above the water. e.