[Semper Fidelis]

Today I took four L.A. City buses with a test load for a 5 ft. pack

Try it again with a 5 foot 1 inch pack.      

Or directly with a 4.6 foot pack

PS : What did say the peoples around you ?
PPS : If they asked you if you were ill, you do have to consider the 4.6 pack to go into the ambulance

Just kiding, obviously

[JoeF]

AI came up with this suggestion for a movement logo. However, since we are just at the beginning stages,
other logo suggestions will appear. Offer as you are inspired!

TPHGmovementLogo001.JPG (49.24 KiB) Viewed 342 times

Feel free to fly other logo suggestions for the TPHG movement....
Tiny Packed Hang Glider
Movement

==============
Semper Fidelis,
Not one passenger on the buses said anything. It was obvious that I was carrying two patio umbrellas.
==============

[JoeF]

An AI Logo maker came up with this suggestion:

Does "Compact" capture "tiny-packed"? Not sure.

CompactHGsTPHG.png (82.09 KiB) Viewed 341 times

[JoeF]

Development note regarding nested spar segments:

SparSegmentOnlyOneEndClosed.jpg (3.58 KiB) Viewed 338 times

Have the spar segments as follows: one end permanently closed while the other end permanently open.
When the nested spar segments are held vertically with the closed end of at least the largest OD segment down,
then the nested set of spar segments cannot accidently spill out the lower end.
And when the largest spar segment has such a closed end, then there is a special opportunity on how to join left and right wing spar segments at the keel (more later on this matter).
The one-end-closed-only deal retains the nestability of such segments. Cleaning the inside of such tubes having one-end-only closed will add some challenge, but doable.
Note that only the largest diameter tube of a nested pack needs the one-end-closed treatment; the smaller nested tubes might keep open-open status.

[JoeF]

A chat with ChatGPT:

In my chats with you, what does TPHG mean?

In your chats, TPHG stands for "Tiny Packed Hang Glider." It refers to your design for a compact and portable hang glider that can be easily transported and assembled for urban transportation.

A milestone would be a packing that is 4-ft maximum length and less than 2 cubic feet with all subpacks totaled.

That sounds like a significant milestone for your TPHG design! Achieving a packed size of 4 feet in length and less than 2 cubic feet total would be a major step toward making your hang glider easily transportable and practical for urban settings. It would also ensure that the TPHG meets your compactness goals for convenient storage and transport.

A main pack might be 1 ft by 4 ft by 1/3 ft. That would be 1.33 cubic feet. That would leave 0.67 cubic feet for subpacks' net volumes.

Given your main pack dimensions of 1 ft by 4 ft by 1/3 ft, you’re looking at a total volume of 1.33 cubic feet. With a total volume goal of 2 cubic feet, this leaves you with 0.67 cubic feet for the volumes of all subpacks.

To stay within this limit, you'll need to carefully design the subpacks to maximize their efficiency and minimize their space. It might be helpful to use flexible, modular designs for the subpacks to fit snugly around the main pack and make the most of the available space.

The main pack could be carried chestwise in a bus, while subpacks could variously fit in hat-helmet, on back of pilot, in on-leg side. etc.

That’s a practical approach for urban transportation! By carrying the main pack chestwise on a bus and utilizing various subpack locations (like a hat-helmet, on the pilot's back, or on one pt yep legs, you can distribute the load and ensure everything fits within the 2 cubic feet total volume.

This strategy helps in managing space and maintaining balance while transporting the TPHG. Each subpack’s design should be optimized for its intended location to ensure comfort and accessibility. For example, a subpack designed to fit in a hat-helmet should be lightweight and have a streamlined shape.

[JoeF]

Development note on a type of TPHG and its keel and the keel's interface with sets of left-wing spars and right-wing spars,
and with kingpost and two queenposts: This note is rough and will be altered as challenges are faced.

This case faces a line-rigged geometry for the wing that puts the spars in axial compression and the kingpost and two downtubes (queenposts) in axial compression.

Consider having the keel made of three beam segments, two of which Joe Cup join to a central segment. Have the keel segments be large enough to enclose nestingly the sets of nested spar segments mentioned in some detail a few post above (ABCDEFGH permitting toted OO); then toted beam view would just be KK (not yet addressing queens or king). Have in the keel fore segment holes that receive the two ends of the compressing spars. Have in the keel aft segment similar holes that receive the two ends of the compressing aft spars. But have special reinforced rubber caps that fit over the root ends of the butting spars. A means to stop random escape will be worked out, if wanted or needed, else some freedom might be designed for the scene. Similar for the cushioned butting of the kingpost and queens. Aim for low mass cost of handling the butting situations.
===========================================
Chat reworked my prose:

Development Note on a Type of TPHG and Its Keel, Including the Keel’s Interface with Left-Wing and Right-Wing Spar Sets, Kingpost, and Queenposts:

This note is preliminary and will be updated as challenges are encountered.

This design involves a line-rigged geometry for the wing that places the spars and the kingpost, along with two queenposts (downtubes), in axial compression.

The keel is proposed to consist of three beam segments: two outer segments joined to a central segment using Joe Cups. The keel segments should be large enough to nest the sets of spar segments (ABCDEFGH) compactly. Thus, in the compacted view, only the keel segments (KK) will be visible, excluding the kingpost and queenposts.

In the keel's fore segment, include holes to accommodate the ends of the compressing spars. Similarly, the keel’s aft segment should have holes to receive the ends of the compressing aft spars. Special reinforced rubber caps will be fitted over the root ends of the butt-jointing spars to ensure secure connections. If necessary or desired, a mechanism to prevent random disengagement will be developed; otherwise, some flexibility may be allowed. The same approach applies to the cushioned butting of the kingpost and queenposts. The goal is to minimize the mass and complexity of handling these connection points.

[Semper Fidelis]

Feel free to fly other logo suggestions for the TPHG movement....
Tiny Packed Hang Glider
Movement

Just kiding once again

T-SHIRT TPHG GREEN OMBRELLA.jpg (58.54 KiB) Viewed 323 times

Just kiding, once again !

Glad to know for the people in the bus

[Semper Fidelis]

ABOUT THE RANGER, HERE IS A GERMAN FORUM TALKING ABOUT

https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... schmidtler
https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... tler/page2
https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... tler/page3
https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... tler/page4
https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... tler/page5
https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/ ... tler/page6

Please read WEBAIR testimony on page 6, very interesting !

[JoeF]

Thanks, Semper Fidelis!
Reading and translating. Not done yet. Stratos as precursor to Ranger ... etc.
In exploring the forum here is a translated post by Gunther: (I added emphasis and color)

24.12.2008, 21:32
AW: Stratos mountaineering kite from Schmidtler

Hello Said,

the Stratos was my first kite in 1979. Weight 15 kg, packed length 1.5 m. Nice direct handling at the time. You just couldn't go too slow, then it would go around the corner uncontrollably like Schmidt's cat.... Performance today is of course more comparable to GS.

Whether and how a 30-year-old kite still flies depends very much on its condition. I would check that very carefully.

Günther

Just under 5 ft at that 1.5 m.
But the Stratos had its challenges.

Another poster:

AW: Stratos mountaineering kite from Schmidtler
25.12.2008, 11:27
Hello Jens,
the real reason I bought the kite is my upcoming trip to China. Due to the short pack size, it is possible to take the kite with me as "normal" luggage on Hainan Airlines, otherwise I would have certainly resorted to the Cloud II or Mars 170, no question. Is there perhaps a slightly more up-to-date device with pack sizes of up to 2m?

The Year of the Kite is approaching and the Chinese have already made preparations for the Spring and Kite Festival. I'm curious to see what the reactions will be when I glide over the Great Wall of China with the Stratos, they've never seen a kite like that there. I'll

report back, now I just have to pack the kite properly and safely.

Greetings Said

Pertinent: Another post from that forum: (I added bold)

29.12.2008, 18:13
AW: Stratos mountaineering kite from Schmidtler

Hello Said,
please contact our highly esteemed Bernd Schmidtler again. He is the designer of your machine and is the only one who can say whether your kite is safe in terms of flight technology and aerodynamics after 30 years of ageing. After all, he was our "kite technology pope" for decades (at least I think so) and was responsible for the safety and approval of our kites. His words are still to be treated like the basic aerodynamic law today and are reflected in the approval of new kites. Even the DHV measuring vehicle for kites was invented and built by Bernd Schmidtler and is still considered up to date and older than you.
So pick up the phone or email him and get in touch. Don't worry, he's a nice guy.

Greetings Ingo

In the discussion in that form, a poster reminded all: Please DO NOT tinker with the sprogs on your own! That is definitely dangerous!!

Pitch reserve is important... otherwise you'll end up doing a forward somersault with a spin cycle! We ALL know that!

https://www.gleitschirmdrachenforum.de/forum/gleitschirm-und-drachen-forum/ger-te-hg/22077-stratos-bergsteigerdrachen-von-schmidtler/page6

[JoeF]

Development note regarding types of telescoping:
Conical constant taper in segments allows nesting of segments
Elliptical taper
Stepwise taper : this allows nesting of segments.

Chat massaged my prompt for the following:

Overview of Spar Tapering for a Hang Glider:

The focus is on designing a 15-foot spar for a hang glider, where the spar or spars extend from the keel to the wingtip on both the left and right wings. The tapering of these spars is critical for optimizing weight, strength, and aerodynamic performance. Below are several tapering strategies:

1. Linear Taper (Truncated Conical Spar):
   
   • Description: The spar tapers smoothly from a larger outer diameter (OD) at the keel (e.g., 1.5 inches) to a smaller OD at the wingtip (e.g., 0.5 inches).
   • Engineering Considerations: This linear taper provides a continuous reduction in material, balancing strength with weight reduction. The conical shape is structurally efficient and distributes stress evenly along the spar's length.
2. Stepwise Telescopic Taper:
   
   • Description: The spar is composed of multiple segments, each with a constant OD. As you move outward from the keel, each subsequent segment has a progressively smaller OD. For example, the first segment might have an OD of 1.5 inches, the second 1.2 inches, the third 0.9 inches, and so on.
   • Engineering Considerations: This approach allows for easy disassembly and transport, as the segments can nest within each other. However, the joints between segments must be carefully designed to maintain structural integrity, possibly requiring additional rigging or reinforcement to prevent flex and ensure alignment.
3. Double Tapered Segments:
   
   • Description: Each segment of the spar is double-tapered, meaning it tapers towards both ends from a thicker middle section. The spar is composed of multiple such segments, with each segment having a lesser degree of taper as you move outward from the keel to the wingtip.
   • Engineering Considerations: Double-tapered segments can provide enhanced stiffness and strength in the middle of each segment, where bending moments are highest. As the taper reduces towards the wingtip, the spar becomes lighter and more flexible, aiding in aerodynamic efficiency. This design requires precision in manufacturing to ensure that the taper transitions smoothly between segments.
4. Other Tapering Modes:
   
   • Exponential Taper: This type of taper decreases the OD at an exponential rate rather than linearly, potentially offering a better distribution of material and weight for specific load profiles.
   • Parabolic Taper: Similar to the exponential taper but follows a parabolic curve, which can be optimized for different stress distributions along the spar.
   • Hybrid Taper: Combines different tapering methods within the same spar. For example, the root segment might have a linear taper, transitioning to an exponential taper in the midsection, and ending with a parabolic taper towards the tip. This hybrid approach allows for tailored stiffness and flexibility according to the specific aerodynamic and structural needs of each section of the wing.

Engineering Considerations for Spar Tapering:

1. Material Selection: The tapering strategy must align with the material properties of the spar (e.g., carbon fiber, aluminum) to ensure that the spar can withstand the load without unnecessary weight.

2. Manufacturing Complexity: More complex tapering methods, like double tapers or hybrid tapers, may require advanced manufacturing techniques, increasing production costs and time.

3. Stress Distribution: The chosen tapering mode should distribute stress evenly across the spar to avoid weak points that could lead to structural failure.

4. Assembly and Transport: Tapering methods that allow for easy disassembly (e.g., telescopic tapers) are advantageous for portability but require robust joint designs to maintain strength during use.

and

Nesting Feasibility of Tapering Schemes for a 15-Foot Spar:

To ensure the four 15-foot segments of the spar can nest together for compact packing when the hang glider is disassembled, the tapering schemes must be designed to allow one segment to fit inside the other. Here's how each tapering scheme applies:

1. Stepwise Telescopic Taper:
   
   • Nesting Feasibility: Yes, this tapering scheme allows nesting.
   • Description: Each segment has a constant outer diameter (OD), but the OD decreases progressively from one segment to the next. For example, if the first segment has an OD of 1.5 inches, the second might have 1.2 inches, the third 0.9 inches, and the fourth 0.6 inches. This allows each segment to fit snugly inside the previous one, enabling efficient nesting.
   • Packing Advantage: This method is particularly suited for nesting as it is explicitly designed with nesting in mind.
2. Linear Taper (Truncated Conical Spar):
   
   • Nesting Feasibility: No, this tapering scheme does not allow for nesting without modifications.
   • Description: The spar tapers smoothly from a larger OD at the keel to a smaller OD at the wingtip. While this taper provides a continuous reduction in diameter, the change is gradual across the entire length, making it impossible to nest multiple segments directly unless the segments are specifically designed with corresponding inner diameters and lengths to allow nesting.
   • Packing Challenge: You would need to design each segment with an inner diameter (ID) that matches the OD of the subsequent segment for partial nesting, but full nesting is unlikely without losing structural integrity.
3. Double Tapered Segments:
   
   • Nesting Feasibility: No, this tapering scheme does not naturally allow for nesting.
   • Description: Each segment tapers towards both ends from a thicker middle section. Since both ends of each segment are tapered, the segments won’t nest neatly inside one another. This design prioritizes strength and stiffness over packing efficiency.
   • Packing Challenge: To achieve nesting, the segments would require significant design alterations, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the double-taper feature.
4. Exponential or Parabolic Taper:
   
   • Nesting Feasibility: No, these tapering schemes typically do not allow for nesting.
   • Description: These tapers reduce the OD at an exponential or parabolic rate. Like linear tapering, they do not inherently facilitate nesting unless specifically designed with nesting in mind, which can be challenging and complex.
   • Packing Challenge: While these tapers offer specific aerodynamic or structural benefits, they generally do not support nesting without compromising their intended performance.

Conclusion:
- Best Tapering Scheme for Nesting: The Stepwise Telescopic Taper is the most suitable tapering scheme for allowing the four segments to nest inside one another for compact packing. The other tapering methods, while beneficial in other ways, do not naturally support nesting unless significant design modifications are made, which may compromise structural integrity or packing efficiency.