Re: Speed ??3 - 12 and turbulence
Message funalex Thurs, October 17 2013 - 2:25 p.m.
3cm !! I find it just as huge difference !! especially if it is a 12m! but good even if there are gaps that are created, usually you pull the B and C more than standard mixer, and everything works out ...
Re: Speed ??3 - 12 and turbulence
Message funalex Thurs, October 17 2013 - 6:53 p.m.
another way of seeing the setting of a blender ... ABC test must always be aligned, and then what are the barriers that regulate everything, it would also be much simpler than Flysurfer proposes that the brake adjustment .. .car when C are shooting, B also follow, it is rare that ABC no longer aligned, and it would go a lot faster to solve ... and like that in 99% of cases, you loose the brakes to find a stable wing.
Re: Speed ??3 - 12 and turbulence
Message funalex Thurs, October 17 2013 - 8:22 p.m.
which creates a closing torque (jitter), the hollow in the back of the wing, near the trailing edge ... so the length of the brake is the most important of all, but as they can not change it, we play on B and C without understanding why it makes it more stable. If, for example, on an unstable wing, you untie the brakes, you always find a stable wing (and "on" even without B) ... all that to say that the alignment of ABC is not as important as the length of the brakes from the rest of the wing.
Re: Aurora Chez PANSH
Message funalex Thurs, December 12, 2013 - 11:12
you will not be able ... maneuverability and cap are incompatible, it is easy to understand, a handy profile is a hollow profile = bad cape ... and a manageable wing is a wing that remains behind in the window (where she still has enough support on the wind to spin fast), so that less bine cape, since falls short in the window. but in fact if you want to earn course, these are the C to be drawn, and a hair B.
Re: Aurora Chez PANSH
Message funalex Fri, December 13, 2013 - 9:11 p.m.
imotep33 wrote:
I wonder a little how I can optimize my wing over B and C for the rise in pres. if exememple by releasing the B ca not do something like move the center of lift of the wing and wind up better?
making it the best upwind is a flat profile (underside) / convex
http://aerodynamique.chez.com/profil1.jpg for it is he who has the best power / drag, so in effect releasing B may seem to be what to do to better caper, but in practice it is too unstable. So you still have a nose round rather to overcome the instability. So you can releasing the B and C draw, it should in theory caper better than the reverse, except it's not run very well. after all that is theoretical, must be seen in the field, each wing is different. (ps: do not take offense, but I hope you do not have a pansh because it is still very limited in when the perf compared with a speed 3 for example). I hope they will eventually evolve, there is not much to do to make a good wing, good not to mention the poor quality of materials anyway.)http: // aerodynamics. in. com / profil1. jpg
Re: Flysurfer Speed ??4 "Lotus" (large) ... here we go
Message funalex Fri, December 13, 2013 - 9:33 p.m.
imotep33 wrote:
-the pitiful thing I find is that the video is voi wings that sail callées. there is not an ounce of ammorce of occilation for or how it will run, no person view in the command bar for even that it makes to ride this wing ...
actually me, it suits me well she sails firmly seated in wakestyle less wing moves, the better. good after we see anyway a rider make a kiteloop unhooked 1:20 to dare this is that the wing must run a minimum. but not see the wing. While it is indeed hard to see the differences with S3, for having tested a wing package with different shapes, while generally returns to S3, so if the basic shape is good, so keep it. Then, there are improvements that can be invisible, for example the fact that they have changed the profile can give a lot of surprises, it can bring in stiffness (for the depower) of power, responsiveness ... well, the distribution of B and C on the wing may cm close to some radically change the behavior of the wing, let alone the bridle, which is carément invisible, change a few cm of your flanges to your speed, you quickly understand the impact that can have. I defend ... because I think it's a little early to draw conclusions. images I feel that the twist is not quite the same, but it's so hard to see ... if they already are 25% lighter, it should already be feeling. then for who are eager to see the arrival of two lines, be aware that the paraglider wings fly much faster, and therefore the rigidity is higher, kite, it is difficult to obtain the same pressure and thus the same rigidity with much lower speed.
FLYSURFER SPEED ??4 "LOTUS" (LARGE) ... HERE WE GO
standelac wrote:
I just compare the description of the clamping Speed ??3 and 4 speed, c is the same.
false, you have not compared well ... at least for the 12m is not the same, or when you compare that A. there are important differences of more than 3cm negatively on one side and positively on the other side, either 6cm difference, and when we see a small cm mixer setting on the 12m makes it completely unstable, it confirms that this simple can bring many different clamping. in assuming the shape is the same (it is probable, but not certain there too, because the clamping of the drawing does not represent the same as and flat), so what I notice is that: for Whom have not moved ... -they have flattened shape of the arch of B ie they get more central than before, and less on the sides -idem for C -idem for brakes that means a wing with a different twist (less important, much like my mod of pansh) in theory it frees ears to better recharge, while stabilizing the center. depower is doing more by the ears (there will increasingly anyway), it is conceivable that the internal pressure gain lotus tissues allowed to lower the angle of attack of the ears. In theory once lined we dig faster ears that the center, which again is in line with a depower / power by the ears, the effect is significant on power, trust me based on my testing, if hollow ears of a wing it deviates more and pulls harder, but it loses stability, hence the fact that the center is more drawn than before to stabilize it. other details, less hollow wing center with less twisting, it's normally a better ratio power / dragged, so best perfs head to see in high jump, and if once lined it offsets to flatten more than before, so it might want ie less than surbordage also unhooked (which would not displease me). verifying that this observation is true for other sizes in short, all that to say, it's not the same wing, and the lotus fabrics allowed more things than just additional sealing, to say the profile they say they have changed, which is likely, it is very difficult to see, and that all assumptions, including that will be probably false and far from the truth! strongly tested.
Re: How to calculate a complete clamp from scratch?
Message funalex Sat., Feb. 8, 2014 - 12:54
Once you know where the stall fronts and rear assembly points, the rest is rather ... Scientific clamping consists of bisectors bisectors bisectors ... etc more clamping is long and without waterfall, plus c is rigid ... the 'cascades' are there to simplify and reduce the cost. Unfortunately, to determine the timing, determine the 3D pressure center of the wing ... that is where should point bisecting the first, one from which all others depend ... And a few cm near, it Fair! values ??may be known for experienced paraglider designers, who have proven software ... but if your wing is different from what is done, you'll have surprises anyway. generally, the clamping wedge to 30% of the rope, Front groupings is the space of 50% of the projected scale and the clamping length is about 70% of the scale. but in small nuances that recognizes the good wings ... so I know what is too much project, but must not dream, make a good wing on the first try, I think that apart from copying, c ' is not possible.
http://foilivier.free.fr/fr/3d007.htm
http://www.tubelesskite.net/t6484-faire ... sson#77434