Lifting body + prone position ?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,402
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
In a forced landing what would you want when you go full thumb tack????? broken ankles and toes or brain splatter and broken neck?
That depends entirely on 1. if the cockpit is intact, and 2. how you are secured.

There isn't a lot of GA or military work done on crash effects on a prone pilot. There is, however, a decades long body of practical experience in prone flying in Hang Gliders. If you crash prone, in a weight shift harness, you tend to swing forward, missing the ground, and hitting the wing. If you don't break your neck on structure, you tend to hit with your back & shoulders, going up into the wing. Restraint straps don't usually work for the flying part, and it's a gamble if the crash is survivable. The good news for Hang Gliders is during landing, you generally are not full prone, but in a standing position, so you don't usually have a full speed swing through. It does happen, remaining prone until the last second, when people try and stretch their glide into the landing field. ( why I always preferred a little altitude in the bank, to burn off in a high drag body position, modulated by speed )

In an enclosed design, ( Not with head sticking out ) If the cockpit is intact, and you are not allowed to hit structure with a harness, you should be good up to a fairly high G level. At the extremes? I think I can safely say that when the g's are high enough to pop your head off your spine, the position you are in doesn't matter that much.

I do rate prone as less survivable than supine, IF you don't load the spine directly, such as your Butt hitting solid structure or ground while still in motion. The science of building a high G survivable seat is just as critical no matter the position.

Then again I could be wrong.
 

Retroflyer_S

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Michigan
I'm not following you. Please explain why that is apparent.

Thanks,


BJC
It glides mucho better than solar impulse with 40:1 ratio. That SI ( I+II ) has a very draggy non lifting fuselage.

I figure even 9 m spanning would still have 30:1 glideratio at 17 kg/m2 wingloading...for 20 m span the loading is closer to 7 kg/m2.
 

D Hillberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,238
Location
very low low low earth orbit
mass is mass and stopping is stopping with a light wing loading or a heavy loading is not a factor at all. You clean up enough crashes from piper cubs -ultralights and fast movers you see 'wing loading' is a load .
A forced landing is what it is and to design a machine with no regard to the fact that you will never screw the pooch "No impact" is full of Bull.
 

Retroflyer_S

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Michigan
mass is mass and stopping is stopping with a light wing loading or a heavy loading is not a factor at all. You clean up enough crashes from piper cubs -ultralights and fast movers you see 'wing loading' is a load .
A forced landing is what it is and to design a machine with no regard to the fact that you will never screw the pooch "No impact" is full of Bull.
Well the impact you are craving no one survives ....even in the safest fuselage. That is no longer called a landing.
 

Retroflyer_S

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Michigan
My question is how do you know that it glides better than the Solar Impulse.


BJC
It is based on the fact that this AC has less drag and wing loading...and similar aspect ratio in practise. It is almost educated guess, but since we know that SI 1 + 2 were designed to fly at nite time carrying half of total mass of batteries with extra heavy fuselage we can be certaing it is far from being an optimal ( motorized ) glider.

I have also tested number of gliders as models....and tested mine as a model.

I could make this a three seater ( all in prone position ) with 12 kg/m2 wingloading and having just less than 1/3 dimensions.....and fly at double the cruise power than SI I does on solar alone. In lay man terms that means 20 times more power/drag. With just 80 kg of batteries it could climb above the clouds even on a rainy day.

It is not only because of the lifting fuselage, but also the material used and the lay out efficiency of the design.

If you check out the McCready lagacy you'll found out that there are several details that are better in Solar Challenger than in SI I + II.

SI I cruise power loading is 0.004375 kW/kg.....and this " Barsoom Scooter " has just below ten times more ( 0,0364 kW/kg )...at a fraction of the drag.
 
Last edited:

D Hillberg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,238
Location
very low low low earth orbit
I don't crave anything just pointing out If you use only one criteria for a design you are going to kill your passengers for no good reason. leave out the prone position'

(try it for long periods you wont like it - Air force tried and gave up on it that might be your first clue)
 

Retroflyer_S

Banned
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Michigan
I don't crave anything just pointing out If you use only one criteria for a design you are going to kill your passengers for no good reason. leave out the prone position'

(try it for long periods you wont like it - Air force tried and gave up on it that might be your first clue)

I agree that prone position in any other AC than this would be less than desirable.

This song derscribes the craft the best; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtcxApSZLvU
 
Last edited:

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,316
Location
Fresno, California
OK, someone dredged up another necro-post (maybe it was new since the banning).

Anyway, it gives me the opportunity to offer another thought on the prone vs seated debate.... for those that advocate prone, do you sleep or rest by laying face down on your stomach? Do you converse with your house guests while laying on your stomach? If not, then why would you ever consider prone flying more functional or comfortable. Yes, it may offer a little more streamlining (which is only marginally important at hang glider speeds), but supine also offers reduced drag.

Let’s put it this way... if I were Superman, I wouldn’t be flying around like he did in the old television show, I’d fly around in an upright or seated position. Much easier to look around that way.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
992
Location
Europe
OK, someone dredged up another necro-post (maybe it was new since the banning).

Anyway, it gives me the opportunity to offer another thought on the prone vs seated debate.... for those that advocate prone, do you sleep or rest by laying face down on your stomach? Do you converse with your house guests while laying on your stomach? If not, then why would you ever consider prone flying more functional or comfortable. Yes, it may offer a little more streamlining (which is only marginally important at hang glider speeds), but supine also offers reduced drag.

Let’s put it this way... if I were Superman, I wouldn’t be flying around like he did in the old television show, I’d fly around in an upright or seated position. Much easier to look around that way.

I think reclined seating position like in the F-16 and gliders ( sail planes ) is the most desirable.
 
Last edited:
2
Top