Archive of the Yahoo! Groups mailing list for the Bug hand-launch glider 2002-2018

From: "Robert Draycott (Rob D)" <rdraycott_uk@...>
Date: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Weight weenies gone mad!!!!!!!
Sorry J but i think you slightly misinterperted the jist of what i was saying. Namely that provision of a more acurate section with say 1/32nd sheet interim ribs from the spar to the leading edge would probably do more for performance without affecting the compact nature of the original design span. Also that any discussion regarding wing section is somwhat futile unless the alternative is specifically designed for a sagging unsuppported wing covering OR addional construction methods are employed in order to utilise a foil not optimised for an open structure. The original design attempted to utilse what was the latest Sd section but didnt truly consider the acuracy limitations of its chosen wing construction. With the benefit of hindsight we can and should review design choices and be able to justify them and always be willing to adapt. More and more modeling classes are now catered for with RTF and ARTF designs that many times far exceed the build ability or resourses of an individual (f3j ,f3b F1A,F2b etc etc etc), the DLG and SALG is becoming one of the last bastions of the home builder willing to try somthing that may be laghed at at the flying field but may be greeted with Ooos and aaaaahs of wonder. RobD ====================================================================== ====================================================================== --- In BugHLG@yahoogroups.com, "John" <gldrgidr@...> wrote: > > The fact that there are higher performing hand launch gliders is not > a NEW piece of information. The key here is that for very little > money and time, the Bug can be built and flown. > Like you said, 'The Bug is a great fun machine'!!! > Most of the modifications you read about in the archives, are meant > to enhance the side-arm launch and performance capabilities without > a major increase in cost or complexity of the design. > Extending the wing span to 34 inches does increase the soaring > performance and is not that complicated. The simple extension of > the spar to the tip and the addition of an x-tail, makes this glider > a decent side-arm launcher. > This is a simple yet elegant design. It forces you to learn minimum > loss flying. This means that you fly with minimum control inputs > and yet coordinated to the airstream. > Please don't make this a discussion about what other gliders would > be a better idea to build. This group is for those who have built, > or want to build, a Bug. > > John > > --- In BugHLG@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Draycott (Rob D)" > <rdraycott_uk@> wrote: > > > > > > Feel compelled to drop a bomb regarding the bug and the recent > threads > > re extended wingspan to bring down the wingloading. > > Could we all just take one HUGE step back from the thread and > actually > > review some things > > > > Firstly the bug is a great fun machine but lets be fair it aint > gona > > cut it against a mouldy. > > seleg D great but on an open structure with no whisper of a d box > and > > you aint got anything like SD over 99.9% o the wing !!! there i > said > > it.... > > realistikly there are better options in regard to construction > method > > and foil choice selected specificly to make the required alowance > for > > the wide variation of foil obtained with the bugs construction . > > > > next the thing is NOT a freeflight machine and whatever foil you > give > > it it will invariably have an optimum wing loading to achieve an > > optimum air speed, ergo when you try to pull up slipery modern > foils > > they perform like C**P since they a are being flown too slow to > work. > > > > Rc gliders fly in a much bigger flight envelope than minimum sink > > freeflight huge camber F1A etc designs and need the capacity to > punch > > upwind , not just float downwind. > > > > Ive seen many of the aero classes jump on the techniques and > knowlage > > of the freeflight boys. F3J ,F3k etc has especially utilised the > whole > > carbon d-box carbon capped ribs and trailing edge construction > > step back and even the fully open F1 a designs utilise things like > > alternate half ribs forward of the spar , additional spars to > provide > > covering support to better APROXIMATE a selected Foil. > > > > > > > > RobD > > > > > ===================================================================== > > >