![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here's a wierd idea:
Get longer wings. If the wings hit an updraft, they will go up, and flex, but the fuselage won't go up right away, kind of a "shock absorber." Then the wings will reflex, giving extra thrust, and dissipating the G's. A few oscillations later and you'll feel real queasy, but you'll have more glide and less G's. Better all around, right? OK, a bit off thread, but has anyone modeled this (dynamic) interaction? Sure sure, we know about best glide, but what about the effect of long wings flapping like a seagull in turbulence? This does NOT seem to be the same kind of thing Gary Osaba does in the Sparrowhawk or Carbon Dragon (with super stiff wings), but it seems related... Any long-wingers care to comment? In article , Steve B wrote: I believe that the shoulder restraints are recommended to be anchored no more than 5 degrees below the shoulder and 30 degrees above the shoulder in a vehicle IIRC. In a glider I would think that the reclined position would change the dynamics of the restraint. Because of the reclined position I would think that there would be less of a tendency to compress the spine when the shoulder straps are under a load. Is the 5th strap and submerging the issue? Would a low anchor point help with the upward motion of the pilot? How would a low anchor point respond with a reclined seating position in a crash? Sounds like keeping your head intact is a primary concern and spine is secondary? So I am thinking 2nd set of straps with a low anchor point (for head to canopy interference) and the standard straps to keep from submerging (family jewels to 5th strap interference). Steve On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:34:37 GMT, "Bill Daniels" wrote: "Marian Aldenhövel" wrote in message ... Hi, Your head is trying to stay where in one postion spatially, so the result is a force against the canopy equal to the mass of your head times the G forces. Minus the force your neck exerts on your head, right? Which brings us back to restraining systems. Ciao, MM -- Marian Aldenhövel, Rosenhain 23, 53123 Bonn. +49 228 624013. http://www.marian-aldenhoevel.de "Flying an An-2 is like making love to a fat lady who's had too much to drink: there's a lot to work with, it's unresponsive, you're never quite sure when you're there, and it's big-time ugly." Many Eastern European gliders have toe straps for the rudder pedals which do a good job of keeping your shins from banging the underside of the instrument panel. The seat belt does a great job of keeping your butt in the seat. The problem is with the shoulder straps. Since pilots sit reclining, shoulder straps are usually angled 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis so they are only effective in preventing the upper torso from bending up and forward at the hip joint in a crash. They are much less effective in preventing the upper torso, neck and head from moving vertically in turbulence. What if the shoulder belts crossed over the chest like bandoleers and attached to the seat belt anchors somewhat like double automotive shoulder straps? That seems like it would secure the upper body well but I don't know how a quick release would work. The idea of shoulder restraints as part of the canopy frame would work great with front and rear hinging canopies. I can't see it working with side hinging canopies. Thinking about this has made me realize that what I really fear about turbulence is a head or neck injury. I'm not really concerned about an upset since I know I can fly out of it safely. Getting knocked out by a blow to the head is a real concern for me. Knowing for certain that my head couldn't touch any part of the glider in severe turbulence would be a real comfort. Bill Daniels -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|