[Bob Kuczewski]

Those Avian videos are excellent Joe. Thanks for posting them.

Florian, I will send you a proposed email announcement to send to all our U.S. Hawks members about your trip. There may be a few who will want to attend. I know I will. I look forward to meeting you!

[JoeF]

Exploring the idea of trekking on sidewalks and paved roads with the main TPHG pack:

Design Concept: Attach a cushioned axle with two wheels spaced roughly 16 inches apart to the pack. This axle would connect securely to a 12-inch length of angle aluminum or angle carbon fiber composite, which would also be cushioned for stability and comfort. A similar axle-and-wheel setup would be strapped to the rear of the pack. Straps would then link the front and rear axles, creating a solid base for easy rolling.

Usage: When moving along sidewalks, roads, or suitable paths, the main TPHG pack can be positioned horizontally, allowing for a smooth, rolling experience.

Public Transit Adaptation: On a bus, options for minimizing impact on fellow passengers include what I call the “front-hugging” position. This method, which involves holding the pack close to the chest, is often well-received and avoids the issues caused by swinging backpacks. For added consideration on crowded transit, the axled wheels could be packed with cushions to keep the setup compact and unobtrusive.

[JoeF]

Some TPHG main packs might be wrapped by the pilot's harness. The harness would provide some cushioning for the important tube set.

Warning, the following AI has some misconceptions about our harnesses. Be very critical of any of the suggestions in the following ChatGPT response.

Using the Pilot's Harness as a Wrap for TPHG Packs

Using the harness as a protective wrap for the main pack of a Tiny Packed Hang Glider (TPHG) could offer dual functionality. Below are some key ideas to consider:

1. Cushioning and Protection

• Harness Padding as a Shock Absorber: The harness could include foam or gel padding in areas that wrap around the TPHG pack. This cushioning would help absorb impacts and minimize damage during transport.
• Reinforced Outer Layer: Adding a Kevlar or Dyneema fabric shell to the harness wrap would increase durability, offering resistance to abrasions and punctures without adding significant weight.

2. Integrated Storage and Support

• Modular Harness Pockets: Pockets designed specifically for each TPHG segment (e.g., individual sleeves for tubes, compartments for crosslines) could keep parts secure and reduce vibration.
• Adjustable Strapping System: Elastic or Velcro straps within pockets could hold each segment in place. This would help keep components from moving around during transit.

3. Weight Distribution and Ergonomics

• Backpacking Configuration: Positioning the TPHG pack close to the pilot’s back would improve weight distribution, potentially placing it near the lumbar area for ergonomic support.
• Detachable, Lightweight Frame: An optional semi-rigid frame could help distribute weight evenly, making the pack more comfortable to carry.

4. Enhanced Accessibility for Flight Preparation

• Quick-Release Compartments: Using quick-release buckles or magnetic closures on the harness would allow easy access to each spar segment and component, speeding up setup.
• On-the-Go Configuration: Some segments could be partially pre-assembled within their pockets, allowing faster setup at the flight site.

5. Integration with Flight Gear

• Attachment Points for Rigging: The harness could include loops or anchors specifically for rigging, reducing setup time by keeping these items within reach.
• Multi-Use Rigging Options: Durable harness straps could double as tension lines or attachment points when the TPHG is assembled.

6. Maintenance and Customization

• Detachable Inner Sleeves: Individual sleeves within the harness could be removable for easy cleaning, repair, or replacement, allowing for customization for different TPHG models.
• Integrated Repair Kit Pocket: A small, dedicated pocket could carry quick-repair items like couplers, connectors, and tape, enabling on-the-go fixes.

Potential Challenges to Consider

• Weight-Balance: It’s important to avoid making the harness too heavy, which might require using lightweight (and possibly more costly) materials.
• User Comfort: Long transport periods require testing to ensure a balanced and comfortable feel.
• Weather Resistance: Waterproofing may be needed to protect TPHG components from rain or snow.

By using the harness for TPHG transport, you can achieve a compact, user-friendly system that simplifies urban transport while providing extra protection and comfort. This approach could reduce the need for separate packing solutions, keeping the TPHG system streamlined and lightweight.
===> CAUTION: Be super critical of any suggestions above.
But maybe get some fruitful nuances. ====

[JoeF]

Though "One Nest" (all or most frame tubes concentric in one nest) for a TPHG seems possible, such a choice and effort very well may not bring optimal packing, transport, and design results. Two nests? Three nests? Four nests? There likely will be explorations that will teach important lessons affecting wing design, wing performance, tote performance and satisfaction, costs (design, manufacturing, maintenance, inspection, replacement, ...), durability, and more.
O
OO
OOO
OOOO
or more?
=======================I ask AI to polish by above note:

Here’s a polished post exploring the concept of "One Nest" versus multiple nests for the TPHG:

---

Considering "One Nest" vs. Multiple Nests for TPHG Spar Packing

When it comes to designing the frame for a Tiny Packed Hang Glider (TPHG), the concept of "One Nest" — where all or most of the frame tubes are telescoped concentrically into a single nest — has a certain appeal. The idea of one compact, fully nested pack might seem like an efficient solution, but there are important trade-offs to consider. Choosing to go with a single nest could ultimately impact more than just the packing efficiency.

So, should we go with One Nest? Or would Two, Three, or Four Nests provide better results?

1. Practical Considerations

• Packing and Transport: With one nest, you may achieve an ultra-compact form. The option of dividing the frame into multiple smaller nests could improve weight distribution, allowing for easier transport. Multiple nests might also fit better within different compartments or bags, adding versatility for transportation by bus, bike, or on foot.
• Assembly and Disassembly: A single nest requires precise alignment for each segment to telescope smoothly. More nests, on the other hand, could reduce the length and complexity of each segment, making setup and takedown potentially faster and less error-prone.

2. Design and Wing Performance

• Aerodynamic Efficiency: The nesting strategy chosen could influence the balance and aerodynamic performance of the wing. For example, distributing frame tubes into two or more nests might offer a more balanced structure, improving stability and handling.
• Flexibility in Wing Shape: With multiple nests, it might be easier to fine-tune the design, adjusting spar lengths and positions for optimal wing camber and washout settings. This can directly affect flight characteristics like lift, drag, and stability.

3. Cost and Durability

• Material Costs: A single nest with fully telescoping tubes may require higher-grade materials to handle the stresses of compression and nesting depth, potentially raising costs. Multiple nests might allow for simpler tube specifications and lighter materials, balancing budget and performance.
• Maintenance and Replacement: A single nest design means more nested layers in one pack, increasing the chance of wear and tear on central tubes due to repeated packing. Multiple smaller nests might localize any wear, making inspection, maintenance, and part replacement easier.

Explorations and Lessons
We’re likely to see a variety of TPHG designs as pilots and engineers test different nest configurations. Whether it's one nest or multiple, each choice offers unique advantages that may affect:

• Wing design and flight performance
• Packing and transport convenience
• Cost and durability of materials
• User satisfaction and versatility in diverse conditions

To explore these configurations, we can represent them symbolically as follows:

• O One Nest - Compact but may be challenging in balance, material requirements, and assembly.
• OO Two Nests - A balanced option that could split weight and improve modularity.
• OOO Three Nests - Greater flexibility in packing and design adjustments, possibly more parts to manage.
• OOOO Four Nests - Potential for highly modular design, offering ease in transport and assembly, but with added complexity.

Each approach holds the potential to influence not only the glider's aerodynamics and durability but also the pilot’s overall experience, from packing convenience to ease of setup and in-flight performance. In the coming designs and experiments, we’re bound to learn which nesting configuration achieves the ideal balance of compact packing, reliable performance, and ease of use.

[JoeF]

The Joe Cup alone or the Joe Cup with shear pinning are two directions of joining telescoping tubes. However there are other means of joining two telescoping tubes. Here is one company's video specializing on joining telescoping tubes.
What may or may not work in TPHG world will unfold in time.

And joining two tubes of same diameter may or may not be used in any particular TPHG.

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


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

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

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

[Semper Fidelis]

MAKE AMERICA GLIDE AGAIN

MAKE AMERICA GLIDE AGAIN.jpg (36.77 KiB) Viewed 264 times

[Semper Fidelis]

Some TPHG main packs might be wrapped by the pilot's harness. The harness would provide some cushioning for the important tube set.

That was exactly the reason why my goal was 4.6ft,
to fit the harness as a bag.


Now I'm managing the overweight fees for the flyght to LA (and back)

[JoeF]

Some TPHG main packs might be wrapped by the pilot's harness. The harness would provide some cushioning for the important tube set.

That was exactly the reason why my goal was 4.6ft,
to fit the harness as a bag.


Now I'm managing the overweight fees for the flyght to LA (and back)

=======================
Joe Greblo recently noted a solution for the overweight fee for the "back" trip:
.....he suggested leaving the pack with him


FILLER: https://youtube.com/shorts/360OKX7YvAw?si=YywHaJ_hFaEMGEsC
Tension method...

[JoeF]

Feeding a candidate for TPHG photograph to ChatGPT, an AI program, and asking simply without other prompt:
My prompt: "Analyze the photo as best you might."

WhiteheadThreeDecker.jpg (94.46 KiB) Viewed 252 times

Analysis of Historic Three-Decker Glider

This photo shows a three-decker (triplane) glider, likely from the late 19th or early 20th century. Below is a detailed analysis of the key features and possible historical context of this early aviation experiment.

1. Structure
- The aircraft has three stacked wings (decks) arranged in a triplane configuration. This design was popular in early aviation, providing additional lift while keeping a relatively compact wingspan.
- The wings are supported by spars and uprights, connecting the three wings. This framework resembles designs from pioneers like Octave Chanute and the Wright Brothers.
- A pair of stabilizers or rudders is visible at the rear, adding stability for pitch (up-down) and yaw (side-to-side) movement.

2. Pilot Position
- The pilot hangs beneath the center wing, likely controlling the glider by shifting weight. This was a common method in early gliders.
- His position suggests this is an unpowered glider, as powered aircraft were still being developed and tested.

3. Control and Stability
- There are no visible control surfaces (e.g., ailerons), so the pilot may be using weight-shift control, shifting his body to steer and maintain balance.
- The triplane layout increases lift but may reduce stability and control, reflecting limited understanding of aerodynamics at the time.

4. Context
- This design is typical of the experimental phase before powered flight. Pioneers like Otto Lilienthal and Octave Chanute tested various configurations to achieve lift and stability.
- This photo likely captures one of these early experiments, a time when aviation was progressing rapidly toward controlled, powered flight.

5. Possible Attribution
- Based on the design and era, this glider may have been created by a lesser-known experimenter in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The setup reflects the innovative spirit of pre-Wright Brothers aviation.

This triplane glider is part of aviation's rich history, demonstrating the gradual advancements that would eventually lead to modern flight.
===================================================================================================================

Note: This is an analysis based on the structural and contextual clues in the photo. Identifying the specific designer or flight pioneer involved would require more research into early aviation archives.

My prompt: Did the filename give you any clue to the maker?

Yes, the filename "WhiteheadThreeDecker" is a clue that suggests this glider might be associated with **Gustave Whitehead**. Whitehead was a German-American aviation pioneer who experimented with various flying machines in the early 1900s. He’s known for his controversial claim of achieving powered flight before the Wright Brothers.

However, there is still debate and limited documentation supporting Whitehead's early flights, so it's unclear whether this specific three-decker glider was his. Most records and surviving evidence of Whitehead’s work focus on powered aircraft with monoplane configurations, such as his "No. 21" aircraft, rather than a triplane glider.

If this image is indeed of a Whitehead-designed aircraft, it would add an interesting layer to his story, suggesting he may have also experimented with multi-wing gliders, like the triplane seen here.

[JoeF]

Florian's mystery puzzle part image was fed to AI for guessing:

We discuss the puzzle in earlier posts in this discussion thread.

PuzzlePartMaybe001.jpg (47.85 KiB) Viewed 229 times

Analysis of Key TPHG 4.6 Part

This part, labeled "KEY PART OF THE TPHG 4.6," appears to be a bracket or structural plate designed for the Tiny Packed Hang Glider (TPHG) 4.6 model. Below is a detailed analysis based on its shape and design features.

1. Shape and Hole Arrangement
- The part has three holes positioned near each corner, suggesting they are attachment points for bolts or screws, allowing it to secure other components of the TPHG frame.
- The shape and arrangement likely make this a joining plate or possibly a keel bracket.

2. Central Cutout
- The large cutout in the center may serve multiple purposes:
- It reduces weight without compromising structural strength.
- It could allow other components, such as spars or the main keel tube, to pass through.
- This cutout also reduces material stress and allows for flexible mounting.

3. Potential Position on the Glider
- This part may be used at a junction where several spars or structural members meet, such as:
- A keel junction where the main keel joins other structural members.
- A central hub that connects left and right wings or the tail to the main framework.

4. Branding
- The "KUGS" label on the part might indicate a specific fabrication or model detail, which could suggest this part is part of a standardized modular or telescopic framework within the TPHG.

In conclusion, this part seems to be a central structural bracket designed to connect major frame elements, like spars or the keel, providing essential stability while keeping the glider lightweight.

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

Note: This analysis is speculative based on visible design features. For exact details, consult with the TPHG 4.6's technical specifications or engineering team.