This is gonna be way too long - delete it.
Unless you're Dan. Thanks for the plug, Dan. Now you can delete it.
Yeah, I do need to get an article out on the Oz Report. I've written and
revised one dozens of times and have had help from Kolie and Pauls Adamez and
Gerhardt with photo sessions but I keep seeing things I need to set up better.
Built a model which will illustrate components better than on the real deal but
haven't gotten around to the camera work yet.
The documentation has always been available upon request and I do have photos
of the glider mounted components which'll do until I'm ready for prime time.
The system itself has, however, been on display every time I've made it to
Ridgely over the last four seasons and just about every poor slob who has failed
to see me coming soon enough to escape has had a piece of my tedious
evangelistic spiel. I apologize for allowing you to slip through the cracks, Marc.
The system has been scrutinized by the big guns from the Florida flight
parks, Dennis, and some top notch competitors. The only negative feedback I've had
has been from individuals whose only clue was that it didn't look like the
big ugly chunk of metal with which they were marginally familiar.
This stuff needs more testing about as much as global warming needs more
confirmation study. It gets tested more brutally than anything it's gonna see in
the air long before it gets more than five feet off the downstairs carpet. By
the time it leaves the the runway all that's left are minor adjustment and
design tweaks. The secondary release system has been going up on Ridgely tandem
flights for a couple of years. I'd have my equipment evaluated by someone
who understands glider releases better than I do but I don't think that person
exists. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but I've paid major dues and my AT,
truck, and balloon equipment is top notch.
Although Scott's last comment really doesn't need expanding on but... If Bin
Laden has provided a cure for AIDS and your white cell count was really low
this morning...
My point of view (which was indicated in my post) is not "You're all gonna
die" but "You're not dying fast enough" - i.e., there's so much in the way of
redundant layers of protection that we can use shoddy equipment and get away
with it most of the time.
You can build a city ten feet below sea level smack in the middle of
Hurricane Alley, spend a couple centuries destroying the buffer zone, and mostly get
away with that. I haven't had any need for a seat belt since I was three years
old (and didn't have one).
We're launching off of carts behind highly experienced tug pilots at airports
with windsocks and ribbons all over with releases and weak links at both ends
of the string. Somewhat contrary to the bumper sticker shit doesn't happen -
except in a wee tiny percentage of tows...
A year ago I went way out of my way primarily to share with the Manquin folk
the technology I've spent an obscene amount of time developing on and off over
the course of the past decade or so. The feedback I received was something
on the order of "I guess it's adequate for use at this flight park but it's
gonna take five extra minutes to replace a left downtube."
Eight months after my visit there was a catastrophic accident which probably
could have been totally prevented and, at the minimum, greatly mitigated by
120 millimeters of Dacron fishing line. Let's call it a penny's worth. It
doesn't cost anything, it doesn't weigh anything, it doesn't slow you down, it's
not ugly, and, incorporated at the end of a secondary bridle, it'll last
forever. What's the downside?! (Notice how I refrained from the caps lock key
during that last sentence.)
One aspect of my system is really cool but expensive and not terribly
critical. Other aspects can be incorporated independently, cost little or virtually
nothing, and provide big performance and safety boosts.
Also, Steve had announced his "squid" release at winter's end. It wasn't
available at your local WalMart at the time but, if the weak link might have left
a trace of unpleasantness, that mechanism would have definitely cleaned
things up completely.
I'm not shooting at Daniel but it's extremely frustrating to continue
watching the occasional bit of death and destruction here and in Chicago and on the
other side of the world when the technology to prevent it has been around for a
long time.
I've got some polio vaccine, it won't help with smallpox and AIDS, but it
doesn't cost much and for nothing I'll show ya how to whip up some of your own in
the kitchen.
A glider in line for a full installation recently left a fly-in in a couple
of Hefty Bags so I've got lots of extra components lying around and the
summer's just about over. Any takers?
inertia
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Tad Eareckson
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:50 am
inertia
Yeah, sorry Hugh, didn't catch your announcement in the Pulpit Teams post
before sending. I'll slap the RESERVED stickers back on the parts.
I'm wondering if the curved pin release is, in fact, easier to actuate 'cause
the barrel's got 143% of the diameter or my straight pin job is easier 'cause
the barrel's over twice as long. I've never seen any evidence that there's
any difficultly in opening either one (assuming one can get one's hand there at
the right time). And since I never fly without them I most assuredly had
thunk gloves during the design process. I can make the barrel any diameter I
want but there's nothing wrong with the current model.
Given the choice between sticking something in the airflow (and, after
release, my sternum) long and trim versus short and fat, I'll go with the former
(never seen a Willow Ptarmigan diving on a Gyrfalcon).
I also get lighter and stronger. Both will function under a 200 pound load
but after the test on the curved pin you'll have to stitch in a new one.
With a bit of extra effort the straight pin release can be connected to the
bridle or weak link in locking mechanism mode but if one is that stupid my
feeling is that that individual should either leave the sport, gene pool, or both.
And as of a week ago we know of one more curved pin failure than straight
(1:0).
Not that this really matters anyway. If you fly with a proper two point
system the likelihood that you will ever have to use a secondary in a critical
situation is something around zero and if you're flying one point you should have
a squid trigger in your teeth.
With respect to the full two point system... The conventional cable based
system is not "tried and true" - it is "tried and unreliable". I hear of
failures just about every time I go out. My system has NEVER malfunctioned on the
bench or in the air and I have yet to see the scenario in which it can be made
to. I suggest that old designs need to be approached with more skepticism
than new.
And the stored energy version of my leechline lanyard based system is not
"new". It's been around for over four years. In terms of hang glider
evolutionary scale that's freakin' ancient. And the first evolutionary stage of this
thing first went aloft eleven years ago Sunday. And there's never been a
failure involving any of those. Is that long enough?
When I clip into a hot-off-the-press new topless supership demo for the first
time I am not the test pilot. I'm just some jerk checking out a superior,
proven, certified design.
Finally (for the time being anyway), nobody's opinion, including that of the
pilot on the cart, is worth a rat's ass.
This system is not built on opinion. It's built with respect to stuff like
physics, engineering, aerodynamics, mechanics, load testing, worst case
scenario capability, and logic.
Weight is a bad thing, strength is a good thing.
Abrasion is a bad thing.
A 3/64 inch leechline lanyard running inside a faired downtube causes less
parasitic drag than a cable housing four times that diameter velcroed to the out
side.
A straight pin exerts less lateral force and experiences less stress in a
barrel than a curved one.
No one ever died as a result of having a weak link.
A pilot having a finger (or pair of incisors) on the trigger has a greater
chance of survival than one who has to hunt, peck, and pull.
A pilot using a release system with no history or capability of failure has a
greater chance of survival than one using a system in which failures are
routine.
Flying decisions need to be made on the basis of numbers. With a rosy future
opening up in the field of intelligent design education there's plenty of
room elsewhere for opinion.
before sending. I'll slap the RESERVED stickers back on the parts.
I'm wondering if the curved pin release is, in fact, easier to actuate 'cause
the barrel's got 143% of the diameter or my straight pin job is easier 'cause
the barrel's over twice as long. I've never seen any evidence that there's
any difficultly in opening either one (assuming one can get one's hand there at
the right time). And since I never fly without them I most assuredly had
thunk gloves during the design process. I can make the barrel any diameter I
want but there's nothing wrong with the current model.
Given the choice between sticking something in the airflow (and, after
release, my sternum) long and trim versus short and fat, I'll go with the former
(never seen a Willow Ptarmigan diving on a Gyrfalcon).
I also get lighter and stronger. Both will function under a 200 pound load
but after the test on the curved pin you'll have to stitch in a new one.
With a bit of extra effort the straight pin release can be connected to the
bridle or weak link in locking mechanism mode but if one is that stupid my
feeling is that that individual should either leave the sport, gene pool, or both.
And as of a week ago we know of one more curved pin failure than straight
(1:0).
Not that this really matters anyway. If you fly with a proper two point
system the likelihood that you will ever have to use a secondary in a critical
situation is something around zero and if you're flying one point you should have
a squid trigger in your teeth.
With respect to the full two point system... The conventional cable based
system is not "tried and true" - it is "tried and unreliable". I hear of
failures just about every time I go out. My system has NEVER malfunctioned on the
bench or in the air and I have yet to see the scenario in which it can be made
to. I suggest that old designs need to be approached with more skepticism
than new.
And the stored energy version of my leechline lanyard based system is not
"new". It's been around for over four years. In terms of hang glider
evolutionary scale that's freakin' ancient. And the first evolutionary stage of this
thing first went aloft eleven years ago Sunday. And there's never been a
failure involving any of those. Is that long enough?
When I clip into a hot-off-the-press new topless supership demo for the first
time I am not the test pilot. I'm just some jerk checking out a superior,
proven, certified design.
Finally (for the time being anyway), nobody's opinion, including that of the
pilot on the cart, is worth a rat's ass.
This system is not built on opinion. It's built with respect to stuff like
physics, engineering, aerodynamics, mechanics, load testing, worst case
scenario capability, and logic.
Weight is a bad thing, strength is a good thing.
Abrasion is a bad thing.
A 3/64 inch leechline lanyard running inside a faired downtube causes less
parasitic drag than a cable housing four times that diameter velcroed to the out
side.
A straight pin exerts less lateral force and experiences less stress in a
barrel than a curved one.
No one ever died as a result of having a weak link.
A pilot having a finger (or pair of incisors) on the trigger has a greater
chance of survival than one who has to hunt, peck, and pull.
A pilot using a release system with no history or capability of failure has a
greater chance of survival than one using a system in which failures are
routine.
Flying decisions need to be made on the basis of numbers. With a rosy future
opening up in the field of intelligent design education there's plenty of
room elsewhere for opinion.