The kicker here is the torsional load on the pylon from a ground
loop or possibly a spin plus recovery. Even if a carbon fibre
tube could approach the torsional rigidity/strength of a standard
fore/aft pin attachment in the fuselage, the structure needed
to distribute the pylon loads into the wing may be compicated.
But I am willing to be proved wrong.
John F

At 00:12 12 February 2014, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:56:19 AM UTC-6, Soartech wrote:
Wings with anhedral have been shown to be more efficient (L/D) than
strai=
ght=20
wings. I can looks up the study if anyone needs to know more. This may
be=
the=20
reason paragliders perform as well as they do despite large amounts of
dr=
ag.

Please do. Might be amusing.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:15:43 PM UTC-6,
wrot=
e:
...Or possible it applies in some cases and not others.=20

Think you will find paragliders do have large drag, but such low speed as
t=
o make the horsepower consumed small. Think Paul MacCready and the
Gossame=
r series of man powered planes. Most previous were cantilever, but he
put
=
wires out all over the place. Why? Lighter structure =3D lower flying
spe=
ed =3D lower horsepower required. Horsepower is a cubic function of
speed.=
Cut the flying speed in half, cut the horsepower to 1/8th. So you can
af=
ford a little higher drag if you knock the speed way down. Man powered
fli=
ght is horespower limited. So is paraglider flight. They don't have to
ma=
ke much lift, and at low speed, all the risers don't make too much drag.
N=
ot much horsepower available from the low weight, either, so not much
speed=
range.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:24:53 PM UTC-6, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
There are some other details at work; you gain lift, since now the wing
i=
s=20
actually lifting (no dip in the spanwise lift distribution anymore), so
y=
ou=20
can actually shrink the wing area with a significant part of the wetted
a=
rea increase.

Well, there is still a dip in the lift distribution. It is caused by the
h=
orizontal tail. If, of course, we are talking complete system, and not
jus=
t wing. There is still a negative effect from the fuselage, but not
NEARLY=
as big

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:24:53 PM UTC-6, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
The pylon could be rather small, for a modern super-elliptic area=20
distribution (winglets), we now need a root chord of something like
24".
Given the fairly low forces on the pylon (save yaw, groundloop), the
pylo=
n
could be a lot smaller in chord and thickness.

The smaller you make the pylon and closer you get the load reacting
points
=
together, the higher the loads go. And, if you make the pylon too small,
y=
ou lost all your volume for control connections. :-) Also, check the
root=
chord on the AS-W27, V2, or even the Diana or Duckhawk. Think they are
st=
ill 27 to 30 inches.

I also am not ready to buy into the need for anhedral for roll control if
y=
ou have a pylon mounted wing. Weight of the wings, plus all the water
carr=
ied in the wings, tends to make the fusleage and pilot a much smaller
perce=
ntage of the mass of the flying machine. So, the center of mass is not
sta=
rting as close to on the axis of the fuselage as you might think. What?
T=
he world doesn't revolve around the pilot? :-)

Good thoughts. Keep them coming.

Steve