[JoeF]

Development note:

To get an approximate double tapering of a beam for resisting buckling while aiming for least mass while aiming still for some nestable parts for packing:
During assembly, semicircular reinforcement plates are applied to the central region of the kingpost and queenposts (or downtubes). These plates, shaped to match the curvature of the masts, are then secured using reinforcement bands (Velcro straps) that snugly wrap around the masts, increasing the overall resistance to buckling in a lightweight and efficient manner.

Another option for the same scene might be the use of three segments for the kingpost, three segments for each of the queenposts. JoeCups might be used for the joins, two per beam. The two outside segments would fit into the central segment; the central segment would be stronger for the resistance to buckling.

[JoeF]

This might come in handy:
Have three tubes nested, each tube, say, 3 ft long. The tote is one visible nest. At assembly open the nest and let the largest OD tube be the center tube of a meta tube. Let the other two tubes be joined with Joe Cups to make a meta tube, say 8 ft 4 in. The join overlap might thus be 4 in and 4 in. In the TPHG the tube, let us assume, will be under axial compression. Such a beam is approximately double tapered. But the tapering need not be mass tapered, as there are choices of material and of wall thickness. The three tubes involved need not all be of the same material; e.g. the central tube being largest in OD might be of CF, while the two end tubes might be of aluminum; or otherwise, or a mix of three types of material: fiberglass, aluminum, carbon fiber. The wall thicknesses of the three tubes need not be equal. The nesting for tote need not be a tight nest; gap filling at assembly may be adjusted by the structure of the involved Joe Cups for the reduction of wobble by gap filling at the overlap. Then note that the meta beam made of the three tubes may form shorter meta tubes by using longer-than-four-inch Joe Cups; perhaps end with an 8 ft meta beam, or 7 ft,, or 6 ft, etc.; just use different lengths of Joe Cups. Recall that one might have a firm Joe Cup or an elastic Joe Cup to address various meta-beam needs.

Note: In a three-tube meta tube using two Joe Cups, when the tube is in axial compression, one join may have a Joe Cup in one direction and the other Joe Cup in the other direction; such accommodates the three nested tubes making up the meta tube.

[JoeF]

compact_hang_glider_packed.jpg (118.01 KiB) Viewed 318 times

Sharing some struggle with Artificial Intelligence regarding illustrating tiny packed hang gliders in the packed state:

[Semper Fidelis]

Out ot the milling machine one hour ago !

Main Frame of the TPHG 4.6 going to anodisation

TPHG46-CENTERFRAME.jpg (76.94 KiB) Viewed 313 times

I go to bed

[JoeF]

Florian,
... pretty parts! Bowsprit?

=================================================
=================================================

[JoeF]

Gemini and I struggle for TPHG packed.
These images are AI's struggle with my text prompts. The images might inspire something;
they do not solve the project.

GeminiEffort01.jpg (60.6 KiB) Viewed 310 times

GeminiEffort02.jpg (62.2 KiB) Viewed 310 times

GeminiEffort03.jpg (58.82 KiB) Viewed 310 times

GeminiEffort04.jpg (47.43 KiB) Viewed 310 times

[JoeF]

Let's create an image that captures the essence of a life dedicated to designing and exploring compact hang gliders. Imagine a peaceful sunset scene on a cliffside, where an engineer is meticulously packing a small, lightweight hang glider into a compact backpack. The hang glider, with its sleek lines and aerodynamic design, is almost folded, showcasing its innovative construction. The engineer, with a look of satisfaction and accomplishment, stands near the edge of the cliff, gazing at the open sky, hinting at countless adventures and explorations. The background features a panoramic view of mountains and valleys, symbolizing the vast possibilities that tiny-pack hang gliders bring to adventurers. The overall atmosphere should be one of serenity, innovation, and the spirit of exploration.

Certainly! Here are some other image ideas that could honor a life dedicated to the design and exploration of tiny-pack hang gliders:

1. Workshop Scene:
- An image of a cozy, well-organized workshop where the engineer is working on the design of a tiny-pack hang glider. The table is covered with blueprints, small components, and tools. The walls are adorned with sketches and photographs of various hang glider designs. The engineer is engrossed in assembling a miniature prototype, capturing the essence of creativity and innovation.

2. Aerial Adventure:
- A dynamic scene of a tiny-pack hang glider in flight, soaring high above a breathtaking landscape. The glider is compact yet sturdy, with vibrant colors that stand out against the blue sky. Below, you can see lush forests, winding rivers, and distant mountains, highlighting the sense of freedom and exploration that these small gliders offer.

3. Legacy Display:
- A museum-style display that showcases the evolution of tiny-pack hang glider designs. The image could include various models of gliders, from early prototypes to modern versions, each with a plaque detailing its significance. The background might feature a large photograph or mural of the engineer, smiling proudly, with a quote about innovation and exploration.

4. Mountain Top Reflection:
- An image of the engineer sitting on a mountaintop, the tiny-pack hang glider beside them. They are looking out over the vast landscape below, with the sun rising or setting on the horizon. This image would capture a moment of reflection, symbolizing the culmination of years of dedication and adventure.

5. Glider Design Evolution:
- A split image showing two scenes side by side: on the left, the engineer in their younger days, sketching the first designs of a tiny-pack hang glider; on the right, the same engineer years later, testing the latest model in the field. This image would highlight the journey of innovation and the passage of time.

These ideas could each convey different aspects of the engineer’s life and achievements, celebrating their passion and contributions to the world of hang gliding.

[JoeF]

How to Invite College Engineering Teams to Design Tiny Packings of Hang Gliders

Here are some ideas to invite college engineering teams to design tiny packings of hang gliders:

1. Create a Design Challenge or Competition

• Title: "Tiny Packing, Big Adventure: Hang Glider Engineering Challenge"
• Description: Invite college engineering teams to participate in a design competition focused on creating the most efficient and innovative tiny-packing hang gliders. Offer categories such as "Most Compact Design," "Best Performance-to-Pack Size Ratio," and "Most Innovative Material Use."
• Prizes: Offer cash prizes, scholarships, or sponsorship for further development of the best designs. You could also arrange for the winning teams to present their designs at a major aerospace or engineering conference.

2. Collaborate with Universities

• Partnerships: Approach engineering departments at universities and propose the challenge as part of their curriculum, capstone projects, or student clubs. Offer mentorship, resources, and materials for the project.
• Guest Lectures/Workshops: Host guest lectures or workshops at universities to introduce the challenge, explain the intricacies of hang glider design, and inspire students to participate.

3. Leverage Social Media and Online Platforms

• Social Media Campaign: Use platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram to promote the challenge. Create engaging content, including videos, infographics, and testimonials from industry experts to attract attention.
• Online Submission Portal: Create a dedicated website or use platforms like Devpost where teams can submit their designs, view the competition details, and interact with other participants.

4. Involve Industry Experts and Alumni

• Mentorship Program: Connect student teams with industry experts, including experienced hang glider designers or aerospace engineers. Alumni who work in related fields could also serve as mentors.
• Judging Panel: Invite renowned engineers, professors, and professionals in the aerospace industry to serve on the judging panel. This can increase the competition's prestige and appeal to students.

5. Offer Real-World Testing Opportunities

• Prototype Development: Provide resources or partner with a company that can help teams build and test prototypes of their designs. Testing can be done in wind tunnels or at actual flight sites.
• Field Days: Organize events where teams can showcase and test their designs in a real-world setting. Invite media, industry professionals, and the broader community to increase visibility.

6. Highlight Sustainability and Innovation

• Focus on Sustainability: Encourage designs that incorporate sustainable materials, energy efficiency, and environmental considerations. Highlight the importance of reducing the carbon footprint through innovative design.
• Innovation Awards: Offer special awards for the most creative and forward-thinking designs that push the boundaries of what’s possible with tiny packing and efficient hang glider design.

7. Engage through Hackathons or Design Sprints

• Hackathon: Organize a hackathon where teams have 48-72 hours to brainstorm, prototype, and present their tiny-packed hang glider designs.
• Design Sprint: Host a design sprint event where teams work intensively over a week or two to develop concepts, build prototypes, and present their findings.

8. Provide Technical Resources and Support

• Resource Kit: Offer a "starter kit" with basic materials, technical guidelines, and access to software tools for design and simulation.
• Webinars and Q&A Sessions: Host online sessions where students can learn about specific technical aspects, ask questions, and get feedback on their designs.

9. Incorporate into Existing Competitions

• Aerospace Competitions: Collaborate with existing aerospace or engineering competitions like SAE Aero Design or AIAA Design/Build/Fly, adding a special category focused on tiny-packed hang gliders.
• Cross-Discipline Projects: Encourage interdisciplinary teams (e.g., engineering, materials science, industrial design) to work together, fostering innovation through diverse perspectives.

10. Promote Career Development

• Resume Building: Emphasize how participation in this challenge can enhance resumes and provide valuable experience for careers in aerospace, mechanical engineering, and related fields.
• Internships: Offer internships or job opportunities with partner companies for winning teams or outstanding participants.

These strategies can create excitement around the challenge, attract talented students, and foster the development of innovative designs for tiny-packed hang gliders.

[JoeF]

ChatGPT 3.5 in my account has been somewhat trained by many of my prompts in recent months. I notice some special tweaks in the below AI generated response that belie such history. There are probably errors or poor ideas in the response, but the response may well be helpful to the movement.

User Prompt:
ChatGPT, I want you to be a contributor to the movement dedicated to obtaining tiny packings of some hang gliders. Keep the pack volume at 2 cubic feet or less. Aim for a moderate glide angle of 7; that is, do not expend mass to get super glide ratios. Have the pack with no dimension greater than 4 feet. Allow a main pack and two sub packs of smaller dimensions. Tell me how you would make such a hang glider and its packing.

ChatGPT's Response:

To contribute to the movement focused on achieving tiny packings of hang gliders with a total pack volume of 2 cubic feet or less, here's how I would approach the design and packing:

1. Design Philosophy

• Moderate Glide Angle of 7: Focus on achieving a glide angle that balances efficiency and simplicity. This allows for less material and complexity in the airfoil design, keeping the weight and packing size down.
• Compactness Priority: The primary goal is to ensure the entire hang glider, including all components, fits into the specified pack volume. The design will prioritize collapsibility and lightweight materials.
• Segmentation and Modularization: The hang glider will be broken down into smaller, easily assembled segments, making it easier to pack and transport.

2. Materials Selection

• Carbon Fiber Tubes: Use carbon fiber for the main structural components like the spars and keel. Carbon fiber offers a high strength-to-weight ratio, allowing for thinner, lighter components.
• Dyneema or UHMWPE Fabric: Use ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) or Dyneema fabric for the wing surface. These materials are extremely strong, lightweight, and resistant to abrasion, making them ideal for a durable and light wing.
• Titanium or Aluminum Joints: Employ titanium or aluminum for the joints and connectors, ensuring strength without adding excessive weight.

3. Structural Components

• Telescopic Spars: Design the main spars (fore and aft) to be telescopic, allowing them to collapse into smaller sections. Each spar could consist of 3-4 segments that nest within each other.
• Foldable Keel: Implement a foldable keel that can be broken down into smaller segments or hinged to fold into a compact shape.
• Collapsible Crossbars: Use collapsible or folding crossbars that can be stowed within the packed length.

4. Wing Design

• Segmented Sail: Design the sail in multiple sections that can be folded or rolled separately, reducing the overall packing volume. Each wing sock (left and right) could be detachable, allowing for more efficient packing.
• Reinforced Leading Edge: Incorporate lightweight, flexible reinforcements in the leading edge of the sail to maintain the airfoil shape without adding bulk.

5. Packing Strategy

• Main Pack (4' x 6" x 6", 1 cubic foot):
  
  • Telescopic Spars: Store the nested spar segments in the main pack, along with the folded keel.
  • Sail Sections: Roll or fold the wing sections tightly and store them in the main pack.
  • Hardware: Include all connectors, bolts, and small components in the main pack.
• Sub-Pack 1 (3' x 4" x 4", 0.28 cubic feet):
  
  • Crossbars and Joints: Store the collapsible crossbars and joints in this sub-pack.
  • Cables and Lines: Store any tensioning cables, control lines, and rigging in this pack.
• Sub-Pack 2 (3' x 4" x 4", 0.28 cubic feet):
  
  • Compression Sticks: Pack compression sticks and any additional structural supports.
  • Accessories: Include accessories like harness straps, a small toolkit, and any other small items.
• Total Volume: The three packs together will have a total volume of approximately 1.56 cubic feet, leaving a small margin for any additional components or slight variations in packing efficiency.

6. Assembly and Disassembly

• Quick-Release Mechanisms: Design joints with quick-release mechanisms for fast assembly and disassembly. This will help reduce setup time and make the glider easier to manage in the field.
• Color-Coded Parts: Use color-coding or simple markings to guide the assembly process, ensuring that each component is easily identifiable and fits correctly.
• Field-Testing and Iteration: Conduct thorough field testing to refine the assembly process, ensuring that the glider can be easily set up and packed down without compromising on performance or safety.

7. Performance Considerations

• Optimized Airfoil: The wing's airfoil will be optimized for a glide ratio of 7, focusing on stable flight characteristics rather than extreme performance. This allows for a simpler, lighter design.
• Weight Distribution: Ensure that the weight distribution supports the desired glide angle and overall stability of the hang glider.

8. Transport and Handling

• Backpack Integration: Design the main pack to be carried like a backpack, with the sub-packs either integrated into side pouches or attached separately for balanced weight distribution.
• Urban Mobility: The small size and light weight will make it easy to carry on public transport, in cars, or even on bicycles.

9. Safety Features

• Redundant Connections: Ensure that all structural connections have redundant locking mechanisms to prevent failure during flight.
• Pre-Flight Checklist: Include a compact pre-flight checklist to ensure that all components are properly assembled and secured before takeoff.

This design approach emphasizes compactness, ease of transport, and moderate performance, making it ideal for urban adventurers or those seeking a portable and efficient hang glider. The modular packing strategy ensures that the glider can be broken down into manageable parts, with no dimension exceeding 4 feet, all within the total volume limit of 2 cubic feet.

-----------------------

User Prompt:
Would you choose line rigging over cantilever schemes?

ChatGPT's Response:

Choosing between line rigging and cantilever schemes for your tiny packing hang glider depends on several factors, including weight, simplicity, packing efficiency, and structural integrity.

Line Rigging:
Pros:

• Lightweight: Line rigging tends to be lighter as it uses cables or lines instead of additional structural material. This is crucial when aiming to keep the total pack volume and weight low.
• Simplicity: Lines can be more easily adjusted or replaced, and they don't require complex joints or mechanisms.
• Compact Packing: Lines can be coiled or folded very compactly, contributing minimally to the total packed volume.

Cons:

• Setup Time: Rigging lines can take time to properly tension and adjust during setup, which could be a drawback if quick assembly is a priority.
• Aesthetic and Practical Complexity: The presence of multiple lines can create more points of potential failure and add complexity to the design.

Cantilever Schemes:
Pros:

• Structural Integrity: Cantilever designs can offer greater rigidity and stability, which might be beneficial in achieving consistent performance and safety.
• Reduced Complexity in Assembly: Without the need for line tensioning, the setup might be faster and less prone to errors.

Cons:

• Increased Weight: Cantilevered structures typically require more material (like thicker or reinforced spars), potentially increasing the overall weight.
• Bulkier Packing: The need for stronger, more rigid components might make it more challenging to achieve the desired compact packing size.

Recommendation:
Given your criteria for compact packing (2 cubic feet total volume, no dimension over 4 feet, moderate glide angle), line rigging would likely be the better choice.

• Weight and Volume Efficiency: Line rigging allows for lighter, more flexible designs that can be packed down efficiently into your specified dimensions.
• Adaptability: Lines can be adjusted in the field to fine-tune the glider’s performance without the need for complex tools or components.
• Compatibility with Modular Design: Since your design includes a main pack and two sub-packs, line rigging fits well with a modular approach, as lines can be easily stowed separately from the main structural elements.

However, if you prioritize quick setup and enhanced structural rigidity, and if you can manage the weight within your packing constraints, a hybrid approach where critical sections use cantilevered elements while other parts rely on line rigging might be worth considering.

----------------

User Prompt:
For the spar segments of 4-feet each, is there anything better than CF for strength-to-weight? Dig deep to answer this question. Thanks.

ChatGPT's Response:

When it comes to optimizing the strength-to-weight ratio for spar segments, carbon fiber (CF) is a highly effective material due to its exceptional performance in this regard. However, exploring other materials might reveal alternatives that offer competitive or even superior properties depending on the specific application and requirements. Here's an in-depth look at potential alternatives and comparisons:

1. Carbon Nanotubes (CNTs)
Pros:

• Strength-to-Weight Ratio: Carbon nanotubes are known for their extraordinary strength-to-weight ratio, with tensile strengths up to 100 times that of steel and a density much lower than steel or aluminum.
• Flexibility and Toughness: They can be combined with resins to create composite materials with exceptional mechanical properties.

Cons:

• Cost: CNTs are currently very expensive to produce and process compared to carbon fiber.
• Processing Complexity: Incorporating CNTs into usable materials requires sophisticated techniques and equipment, which can be a challenge for DIY projects.

2. Graphene
Pros:

• Strength and Flexibility: Graphene is incredibly strong (about 100 times stronger than steel) and has excellent flexibility and thermal conductivity.
• Lightweight: Its density is very low, making it a potential alternative for lightweight, high-strength applications.

Cons:

• Manufacturing Challenges: Producing high-quality graphene sheets or composites is still a complex and costly process.
• Integration: Like CNTs, integrating graphene into practical materials involves complex processes.

3. Aramid Fiber (e.g., Kevlar)
Pros:

• High Strength: Kevlar has high tensile strength and is well-known for its use in bulletproof vests and other high-strength applications.
• Impact Resistance: It has excellent impact resistance and can handle a significant amount of stress before failure.

Cons:

• Weight: Kevlar is generally not as lightweight as carbon fiber, which might be a disadvantage in applications where minimizing weight is critical.
• Cost: Kevlar is also relatively expensive compared to standard carbon fiber.

4. Fiberglass
Pros:

• Cost-Effective: Fiberglass is less expensive than carbon fiber and provides a good balance between strength and weight.
• Ease of Use: It is easier to work with and mold compared to carbon fiber.

Cons:

• Lower Strength-to-Weight Ratio: While strong, fiberglass generally has a lower strength-to-weight ratio than carbon fiber.
• Durability: It can be less durable and more prone to damage compared to carbon fiber.

5. Titanium Alloys
Pros:

• High Strength-to-Weight Ratio: Titanium alloys offer a high strength-to-weight ratio, although not as high as carbon fiber.
• Corrosion Resistance: They are highly resistant to corrosion, which can be advantageous in harsh environments.

Cons:

• Cost: Titanium alloys are significantly more expensive than carbon fiber.
• Density: They are denser than carbon fiber, which might be a drawback in applications where minimizing weight is crucial.

6. Boron Fiber
Pros:

• High Strength: Boron fibers provide high strength and are used in aerospace applications.
• Weight: They offer a good balance of weight and strength.

Cons:

• Cost and Availability: Boron fibers can be expensive and less widely available than carbon fiber.
• Processing: They can be challenging to process and integrate into composite materials.

Comparison Summary:

• Carbon Fiber (CF) remains one of the best choices for a balance of high strength and low weight for most applications, including hang glider spars.
• Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene show potential but are currently not practical due to high costs and manufacturing complexities.
• Aramid Fiber (Kevlar) and Fiberglass are more cost-effective but generally offer lower performance in terms of weight and strength compared to carbon fiber.
• Titanium Alloys and Boron Fiber provide high strength but at the cost of higher density and expense.

In conclusion, for practical applications involving spars with a focus on strength-to-weight ratio, carbon fiber remains the most viable option due to its proven performance, availability, and relative cost-effectiveness. Emerging materials like CNTs and graphene show potential but are currently not practical for most hang glider designs due to their cost and processing requirements.

[JoeF]

Furthering options for Joe Cups:
This note regards the possibilities for a Joe Cup using tubular webbing.
Note that the tubular material may be stuffed with flexible shims to gain desired thicknesses to address variations in gaps when two structural tubes are being joined with a Joe Cup. Once the shims are in place, close the two ends of the tubular webbing to capture small rods. Presto, a Joe Cup with the precise gap filling wanted!

Response:
That’s an interesting approach! Using tubular webbing with flexible shims to adjust the thickness and fit of the Joe Cups could indeed help accommodate variations in gaps when joining structural tubes. Here’s a breakdown of how this could work:

1. Tubular Webbing Selection: Choose a tubular webbing material that is strong enough to handle the forces involved but flexible enough to be adjusted with shims.

2. Shim Insertion: Stuff the tubular webbing with flexible shims to achieve the desired thickness. The shims could be made of materials like foam or rubber that can be compressed or adjusted easily.

3. Rod Insertion: Once the shims are in place, insert small rods or stiffeners into the ends of the tubular webbing. These rods will help maintain the shape of the Joe Cup and ensure it stays securely around the structural tubes.

4. Securing the Ends: Close off the ends of the tubular webbing to hold the shims and rods in place. This can be done by sewing, heat sealing, or using adhesive, depending on the material and application.

5. Precision Fit: With the Joe Cup assembled, it should now have the precise gap-filling properties needed to join the structural tubes effectively.

This method allows for customization and fine-tuning, which could be valuable for achieving a snug fit and ensuring the stability of the join. It also provides flexibility in terms of material choice and adjustment, which might be useful for different design variations or specific applications.