Military Hang Glider Design

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
MECHENG 4108 AIRCRAFT DESIGN
AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT
HANG GLIDER FOR MILITARY APPLICATION
AUTHORS:
Jia Yao CUI Garland HU Tuyen NGUYEN Joshua NORTHEAST Jake PHOENIX Quoc Hung TRAN 1160900 1163062 1147028 1161924 1161542 1160835
June 11, 2010
Hang Glider Design 2010
Executive Summary
This report details the design of a hang glider for military applications. It was decided that the hang glider is to be used to drop paratroopers at their landing zone without endangering the aircraft.
A classic approach was used to design the hang glider and feasibility studies and statistical analysis was used in development of our hang glider design. These allowed us to approximate the size of our hang glider allowing detailed models to be generated.
The hang glider has the capability to be dropped out of a slowly travelling aircraft at 3000 metres and allow the pilot to be safely transported to the ground with a glide ratio of approximately 1:15. The mission profile was constructed such that the hang glider was launched from the aircraft then descended to landing.
ii
Disclaimer
The content of this report is entirely the work of the following students from the University of Adelaide. Any content obtained from other sources has been referenced accordingly.
Jia Yao Cui Date:
Garland HU Date:
Tuyen Nguyen Date:
Joshua NORTHEAST Date:
Jake Phoenix Date:
Quoc Hung Tran Date:
iii
Table of Contents
1. 2. Introduction............................................................................................................1 Literature Review and Market Evaluation.............................................................4 2.1. 2.2. Literature Review............................................................................................4 Market Review ................................................................................................6 Wills Wing ...............................................................................................7 Airborne C4 .............................................................................................7 Avian JAVA.............................................................................................8 Moyes Light Speed RS ............................................................................9
2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.2.4. 3.
Design Specifications...........................................................................................10 3.1. Technical Task ..............................................................................................10 Standard Requirements ..........................................................................11 Technical Level of the Product ..............................................................11 Performance Parameters ........................................................................11 Economical Parameters..........................................................................14 Power Plant Type and Requirements.....................................................14 Main System Parameters........................................................................14 Special Systems and Miscellaneous....................................................15 Reliability and Maintainability ..............................................................16 Unification Level ...................................................................................16
3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. 3.1.8. 3.1.9. 3.2.
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................16 Statistics of Civilian Application Hang Gliders.....................................16 Statistics of Parachutes ..........................................................................20
3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.3. 3.4.
Mission Profile ..............................................................................................21 Weight Estimation.........................................................................................21
iv

3.5. Sensitivity Analysis.......................................................................................22 Sensitivity to Empty Weight..................................................................23 Sensitivity to Payload Weight................................................................23
3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.6.
Aircraft Sizing ...............................................................................................24 Sizing Parameters...................................................................................24 Design Point...........................................................................................26
3.6.1. 3.6.2. 4.
Preliminary Design ..............................................................................................27 4.1. 4.2. Concept Design Number 1 ............................................................................31 Concept Design Number 2 ............................................................................36
5.
Weight Balance and Stability Analysis................................................................39 5.1. Static Margin .................................................................................................40
6.
Aerodynamic Analysis.........................................................................................42 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. Lift distribution .............................................................................................42 L/D Determination ........................................................................................42 Fineness Ratio and Drag of Structure ...........................................................43
7. 8. 9.
Performance Analysis ..........................................................................................45 Three View Drawings ..........................................................................................46 References............................................................................................................47
Appendix A Something.............................................................................................49 Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis Calculations .........................................................50
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 - Paratroopers ...............................................................................................1 Figure 1-2 - Airborne Troops.........................................................................................2 Figure 1-3 - Gryphon Attack Glider ..............................................................................2 Figure 2-1 - The Gryphon Parachute System ................................................................5 Figure 3-1 - Empty Weight Technology Diagram.......................................................17 Figure 3-2 - Aspect Ratio Technology Diagram..........................................................19 Figure 3-3 - Wing Span Technology Diagram ............................................................20 Figure 3-4 - Mission Profile.........................................................................................21 Figure 4-1 - Hand Sketch of Glider Configuration......................................................28 Figure 4-2 - Sketch of pilot configuration on conventional hang glider......................30 Figure 4-3 - Air flow over forward swept wing and backwards swept wing (Wilson 2008) ............................................................................................................................31 Figure 4-4 - Concept Design Number 1.......................................................................33 Figure 4-5 - Detailed sketches of concept 1.................................................................34 Figure 4-6 - Parachute Deployment .............................................................................35 Figure 4-7 - Image of vertical tail used for stabilization (Marshall Brain 2008).........36 Figure 4-8 - Vertical tail concept design......................................................................37 Figure 4-9 - Detailed Sketch of Vertical Tail ..............................................................38 Figure 5-1 - CG Envelope............................................................................................40 Figure 6-1 - Technology Diagram of Glide Ratio .......................................................43 Figure 6-2 - Drag Coefficient of Cylindrical Bodies in Axial Flow...........................44
vi
List of Tables
Table 2-1 - Wills Wing T2 Hang Glider (Wills Wing 2009).........................................7 Table 2-2 - Airborne C4 Hang Glider Specifications (Airborne 2004) .........................7 Table 2-3 - Avian Java Hang Glider Data (Avian 2010) ...............................................8 Table 2-4 - Moyes LightSpeed RS data (Moyes 2005) .................................................9 Table 3-1 - Summary of Performance Parameters.......................................................12 Table 5-1 - Weight Breakdown of the Hang Glider Subsystems.................................39 Table 8-1 - Compliance with performance parameters................................................45
vii
1. Introduction
Airborne forces are military units of light infantry that can be deployed and transported via aircraft. With this aerial deployment method, they can be dropped behind enemy lines without alerting enemy troops. The basic premise of this technique is that the units can be deployed with such speed and fast enough that a cohesive defence cannot be mounted against them immediately, thus giving a tactical advantage. Typically, airborne forces are able to land with parachutes from aircrafts as shown in Figure 1-1, or transported by helicopters as shown in Figure 1-2; however, both methods have their various limitations. Hang gliders could provide a viable alternative to these methods, as they could efficiently complete such a mission, and offer a range of advantages over the methods currently used.
Figure 1-1 - Paratroopers
Page | 1
Figure 1-2 - Airborne Troops
Hang gliders are light, unpowered aircrafts that are typically foot-launched from higher ground to glide through the air, supported by aerodynamic lift from various sources. Hang gliders have a main frame which is constructed out of lightweight materials, typically an aluminium alloy or a composite. This frame supports the wing, which can be either flexible, and made of fabric, or rigid, and made of epoxy and carbon fibre materials. Given their ability to glide silently, this technology could be used to replace the parachutes to provide stealth transportation via aerial deployment at a large distance from the destination. Currently, the military has begun investigating several designs for such hang gliders, an example being SPERCOs Gryphon Attack Glider shown in Figure 1-3
Figure 1-3 - Gryphon Attack Glider
Page | 2

Prior to undertaking an extensive design process, existing hang glider concepts were compared, the different configurations were examined, and the most viable option was selected. The aerodynamic and stability qualities and overall performance of the vehicle was investigated, before a final design was proposed and supported by engineering drawings. The manufacturing and testing of the final design was not assessed, as this is a paper based exercise and such detail is considered beyond the scope of the project.
Page | 3
2. Literature Review and Market Evaluation
2.1. Literature Review

To conceptually design a hang glider for military operations an analysis was conducted into current hang glider models. This involves a literature review of texts and reference books regarding this topic. This will provide us with a greater understanding of the types and configurations of hang gliders enabling us to correctly size a hang glider to be used in military applications.
The military performs aerial insertions by the use of helicopters and parachutes. Helicopters are traditionally used for these operations as they can drop personnel at their landing zone (LZ) accurately without risk to the personnel. However if the LZ is in a hostile area the helicopter there is a risk the helicopter can be shot down. Parachuting is another way to drop personnel at their LZ there is however a larger risk to the safety of the persons because they slowly glide to the ground and are required to land in open areas like fields which provide minimal cover. There are three types of parachuting missions Low Altitude, Low Opening (LALO) jumps, High Altitude, Low Opening (HALO) jumps and High Altitude, High Opening (HAHO) jumps.
LALO jumps are a method of aerial insertion where the parachutist leaves the aircraft at a low altitude of approximately 500 to 2000ft with their parachute opening as they exit the aircraft. This has the advantage of being able to drop a large number of parachutists quickly into a large LZ. This reduces the time the parachutist is visible ensuring they remain safer (White, 1992) however the aircraft must be travelling slowly and at low altitude making it exposed to surface to air missile (SAM) sites.
HALO jumps are a method of delivering equipment, supplies and personnel from a transport aircraft at high altitude to a LZ by free fall parachute insertion. The Page | 4

parachutist will require an oxygen supply as they exits the transport aircraft at an altitude of between 25,000ft and 90,000 ft but will open their parachute at a approximately 2500ft. The transport aircraft are required to reach this altitude to pass above the SAM defences. The parachutist will also not be detected by radar by a combination of a high vertical velocity and minimal metallic on the persons. Drops conducted using this method is typically conducted at night and it ensures that the parachutists reach the LZ close together.
HAHO jumps are used to deliver personnel to a LZ using a transport aircraft. HAHO drops are used when the parachutist needs to be dropped into a hostile environment. During a HAHO jump a parachutist is dropped between 25,000 ft to 90,000ft opening their parachute 8 to 10 seconds after exiting the transport aircraft. The parachutist will then glide with a glide ratio of approximately 1 to 3.5 to their LZ. This technique was employed during the gulf war where SAS teams could leave the transport aircraft outside of hostile areas gliding silently and landing inside enemy territory.
Figure 2-1 - The Gryphon Parachute System
Wing Suits are suits used to increase the surface area of a human to create more lift during a parachute jump. These have been known to decrease the velocity of the parachutist by up to 40 km/h. A form of this has been applied in the SPELCO Gryphon parachute system see Figure 2-1.This was developed to bring soldiers to their LZ without exposing the transport to anti-aircraft fire and maintaining the surprise. The gryphon parachute system weighs only 13kg, has a 1.8m wing with Page | 5

control surfaces. It enables a pilot to be dropped out of a plane at altitude then glide with a glide ratio of 1 to 5 to their LZ (SPELCO, 2010). This design differs from ours as they still require a parachute for a safe landing. Therefore a larger aspect ratio is required to provide a slower descent speed and land the hang gliders pilot safely. Traditional hang gliders have not been used for military operations because of the use of both parachutes and helicopters. This being said, as hang gliders price decreases and technology level increases hang gliders performance has grown. This is due to the use of carbon fibre, light weight fabrics for the sails and aluminium. This has enabled hang gliders to have longer glide times.
Aero towing which is a system where an ultra-light aircraft tows a hang glider aloft. The hang glider is positioned on a rolling cart designed to support at the correct angle of attack for take-off. It also stabilises the hang glider until its velocity is large enough that lift-off occurs (Hang Gliding, 2010). This system is the only system in which a hang glider is towed into to altitude then released.
2.2. Market Review

A market evaluation was conducted to gain knowledge of hang gliders used for commercial operations. A summary of this information is found in the following section. There is potential for hang gliders to be used to replace parachutes in aerial incursions into combat environments. This is because the hang gliders can be dropped off a distance from their drop zone and glide in. Some hang gliders have a glide ratio of approximately 15. As the hang glider is being designed solely for the military, it has been assumed that the pilots are highly trained and thus will be able to use advanced level hang gliders and there are not any cost constraints as the military is government funded. Therefore the analysed market will consist of advanced level, high performance hang gliders.
Page | 6

2.2.1. Wills Wing
Wills Wing is an American hang glider manufacturer that produces hang gliders for beginners through to advanced pilots. The Wills Wing T2 is an advanced level, high performance hang glider with two models, a 144 and 154. The 154 has a larger wing area, span, and aspect ratio allowing for an increase in pilot weight. The performance parameters are equal however for each model. Table 2-1 shows the configuration of the T2 hang glider.
Table 2-1 - Wills Wing T2 Hang Glider (Wills Wing 2009)
Specification Area (ft^2) Span (ft) Aspect Ratio Glider Weight (lbs) Hook-In Weight (lbs) Optimum Body Weight (lbs) Nose Angle (deg) Double Surface (%) USHPA Rating Maximum Velocity for straight flight Vne (ft/s) Maximum Velocity For Turbulent flight Va (ft/s) Minimum Descent Rate Velocity Vms (ft/s) Maximum Steady State Velocity Vd (ft/s)
T2 144 T2 154 144 154 32.3 33.5 7.3 7.4 71 73 160-235 185-285 140-180 180-200 127-132 92 4 77.73 67.47 30.8 102.67
2.2.2. Airborne C4
Airborne are an Australian micro light aircraft and hang glider manufacturer. The airborne C4 is another advanced level, high performance hang glider with three different models, the C4 13, 13.5 and 14. C4-13 has the smallest wing area, span and aspect ratio. These values increase between the other models as is shown in Table 2-2.
Table 2-2 - Airborne C4 Hang Glider Specifications (Airborne 2004)
Wing area Wing span Aspect ratio
C4-13 12.7m2 (137ft2) 9.6m (31.5ft) 7.3
C4-13.5 13.5m2 (146ft2) 10m (32.8ft) 7.4
C4-14 14.3m2 (154ft2) 10.4m (34.1ft) 7.6 Page | 7

Nose angle Double surface Glider weight Packed length Short packed Rec. pilot hook in weight VNE (max velocity) VA (max rough air velocity) VD (max steady state velocity) 128-133 93% 33kg (73lb) 4.9m (16.1ft) 3.8m (12.5ft) 55-80kg (121-176lb) 85km/h (53mph) 74km/h (46mph) 125km/h (78mph) 128-133 93% 34kg (75lb) 5.1m (16.7ft) 4m (13.1ft) 70-100kg (154-220lb) 85km/h (53mph) 74km/h (46mph) 125km/h 978mph) 128-133 93% 36kg (79lb) 5.3m (17.3ft) 4.1m (13.5ft) 85-120kg (187265lb) 85km/h (53mph) 74km/h (46mph) 125km/h (78mph)
2.2.3. Avian JAVA
Avian are an English hang glider and paraglider manufacturer. Avian JAVA hang gliders are sports hang gliders offering an excellent blend of performance, handling whilst being light weight (Avian, 2010). There are two models of JAVA hang gliders are available, the 140 and 155. The performance data for the JAVA hand gliders are shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3 - Avian Java Hang Glider Data (Avian 2010)
JAVA Wing span Wing area Aspect ratio Min sink rate Max. L/D ratio Speed range* Pilot Clip in weight range Max. speed (VNE turbulent air) Max speed (VNE smooth air) Normal packed length Breakdown length Glider weight rigged Glider weight in bag
140 9.2 m (30' 1") 13 m (140ft ) 6.5 0.86m.sec (170ft.min) 13 15-70mph, 24-113 km/h 55kg - 85kg 72kmh (45mph) 113kmh (70mph) 5.6m (18' 5") 4.3m (14' 1") 27.5 kg (60 lbs) 29 kg (64 lbs)
155 10 m (32' 9") 14.4 m (155ft) 7 0.86m.sec (170ft.min) 13 15-70 mph, 24-113 km/h 70kg - 110kg 72kmh (45mph) 113kmh (70mph) 5.9m (19' 4") 4.6m (15' 2") 29.5 kg (65 lbs) 31 kg (68 lbs)
Page | 8

2.2.4. Moyes Light Speed RS
Moyes are another Australian hang glider manufacturer producing hang gliders ranging from beginner models to high performance, advanced level models. The Lightspeed RS has aluminium leading edges, carbon fibre cross bars and standard aerofoil uprights. This reduces the glide weight and improves the hang gliders handling characteristics. The RS comes in two models the RS 3.5 and RS 4. Their performance characteristics can be seen in Error! Reference source not found.
Table 2-4 - Moyes LightSpeed RS data (Moyes 2005)
Litespeed Area Span Nose Angle Aspect Ratio Glider Weight * Optimal Pilot Weight Hook-In-Weight VNE VA Trim Speed Stall Speed *** Maximum Speed Best Glide Speed Best Glide Angle Glide Angle 10:1
RS 3.5 13.7 m2 (147 ft2) 10.3 m (33.7 ft) 130-132 degrees 7.7 33 kgs (73 lbs) 72 kgs (159 lbs) 68-109 kgs (150-240 lbs) 85 kph (53 mph) 74 kph (46 mph) 34 kph (21 mph) 26 kph (16 mph) 124 kph (77 mph) 45 kph (28 mph) 15:1 74 kph (46 mph)
RS 4 14.1 m2 (152 ft2 10.4 m (34.1 ft) 130-132 degrees 7.7 33.5 kgs (74 lbs) 78 kgs (172 lbs) 68-109 kgs (150-240 lbs) 85 kph (53 mph) 74 kph (46 mph) 34 kph (21 mph) 26 kph (16 mph) 124 kph (77 mph) 45 kph (28 mph) 15:1 74 kph (46 mph)
Page | 9
3. Design Specifications
The development of the hang glider concept requires numerous iterations of design and calculations, defined by specifications required of the design. The following sections discuss the process used for identifying problems and opportunities, determining objectives, describing situations, and defining successful objectives in the form of a technical task. A conceptual design configuration will then be proposed based off preliminary sizing for weight and wing area, as well as sensitivity studies. The resultant design is then brought together in the three view drawings.
3.1. Technical Task

The purpose of this design is to develop a paper based concept for a hang glider for military applications as part of undergraduate studies in Aircraft Design at the University of Adelaide. There are many different missions that a hang glider designed for military applications can possibly fulfil depending on the parameters that the glider is designed around. Some of the possible missions of a military hang glider include the aerial transportation of military personnel, flybys, surveillance, cargo drop-offs or a mobile weapons platform where the hang glider has on-board weapons mounted for strafing targets in an attacking configuration. A hang glider however, designed for any one of these applications would need to be optimised for that mission alone and would require modifications to fulfil other missions.
Due to this, the scope of the project will be restricted to the design a hang glider with the main interest of transporting military personnel. The vehicle is to be controllable by one pilot/driver with sufficient military training, and also allow for the carrying of sufficient equipment and baggage.
Page | 10
3.1.1. Standard Requirements
The proposed hang glider design must conform to Hang Glider Manufacturers Association (HGMA) standards. These standards are defined and enforced by private hang glider manufacturers across the globe, and are beyond the usual aviation standards. These HGMA standards cover everything required, such as load testing and stability requirements. This legislation will not be discussed in detail as it is beyond the scope of the course.
The design must also comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which are rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Administration governing all aviation activities. In particular, FAR 91, which covers general operating and flight rules, FAR 103, which covers the airworthiness requirements of all ultra-light vehicles, and FAR 105, which covers the airworthiness requirements of parachute operations will be relevant to this project.
3.1.2. Technical Level of the Product
The hang glider will be designed to offer an alternative to parachutes currently being used by the American military to service paratroopers. Consequently, the mission capabilities should be more advanced and superior to those that are provided by parachutes. Potential benefits from this new technology include longer range, increased stealth, higher deployment speed and possibly passenger comfort.
3.1.3. Performance Parameters
Page | 11

The main performance parameters associated with the design of a military hang glider will be largely determined by the type of mission it will be undertaking. In the case of a military hang glider intended for the transportation of personnel, the typical operating environment will be similar to that of a paratrooper. This includes selflaunch from an airplane at a relatively low altitude, gliding through the air at a steady rate of descent and landing on the ground at the destination where space may be limited. With this application and the associated operating environment in mind, the performance parameters to be designed for have been specified below and summarised Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 - Summary of Performance Parameters
Parameter Crew Weight Glide Ratio Deployment Altitude Landing Distance Maximum Flight Speed
Value 100 kg 15.0 3000 m 20 m 100 km/h
3.1.3.1.
Crew Weight
The crew weight of the hang glider will be the combined total of the pilot and any equipped gear such as a backpack with supplies, weaponry and communications devices. Based on rules of thumb exercised in weight estimations of aircraft, it can be assumed that the typical pilot will weigh 70 kilograms. In addition, the equipped gear carried by the pilot can be estimated to weigh approximately 30 kilograms which would provide a total crew weight of approximately 100 kilograms.
3.1.3.2.
Glide Ratio
To take full advantage of the travel range benefits that can be gained in comparison to parachutes, ideally the glide ratio should be as large as possible. Here, the large Page | 12

expected payload weight will be one of the limiting factors in the potential glide ratio. Due to current technological limitations, the glide ratio that can realistically be achieved is approximately 15. This indicates that for every metre of descent, the glider will travel 15 metres forward.
3.1.3.3.
Deployment Altitude
The deployment altitude for a military hang glider will need to be selected as a compromise between more forward range being achieved and less time being spent airborne where the hang glider is subject to detection or attacks. Research shows that paratrooper jumps are executed at altitudes as low as 150 metres. There is also the limitation of oxygen masks being required at altitudes greater than 2.5 kilometres where there is insufficient oxygen for proper mental function. Therefore the deployment altitude to be designed for will be in between these two figures at 1 kilometre.
The glide range will be dependent on the glide ratio and deployment altitude. For a glide ratio of 15 and a deployment altitude of 1 kilometre as specified above, the maximum range will be 15 kilometres. The range can also be decreased by the pilot inducing drag on the glider as necessary to meet the requirements of the mission.
3.1.3.4.
Landing Distance
Ideally the landing distance will preferably be uphill and into the wind so that the glider is on the verge of stalling just as the pilot lands. This landing distance can be estimated to be approximately 20 metres, but from an approach of up to few hundred meters.
Page | 13

3.1.4. Economical Parameters
3.1.4.1.
Hang Glider Cost Estimation
To maintain the viability of using a hang glider as an alternative means of transportation for airborne forces, the extra cost versus the benefits gained over the usage of parachutes will need to be justified. Ideally the cost should be comparable to a parachute, however due to the intricate mechanisms and materials involved in the manufacture of a hang glider it is very likely that the cost would exceed this. There may also be additional costs associated with the training of the pilots and maintenance of the hang gliders. As such, for military applications an initial purchase cost of $5,000 (AUD) per hang glider is ideal and is comparable to the cost of a parachute. If this initial purchase cost is exceeded then it will need to be well-justified accordingly.
3.1.5. Power Plant Type and Requirements
This hang glider will have no propulsion system of its own and therefore solely rely on gliding to travel long distances. For stealth purposes, this will allow for silent gliding to the destination. Thus the only type of power required for the function of the hang glider will be sourced from the internal body strength of the pilot for the purposes of towing the hang glider and directional control. If the pilot is able to support the empty weight of the hang glider whilst carrying other required military gear such as a backpack with supplies, weaponry and communications devices then the power plant requirements are met.
3.1.6. Main System Parameters
Page | 14

3.1.6.1.
Landing Gear
The legs of the pilot are intended to be used as landing gear as is done with conventional hang gliders. Therefore in the interest of maintaining a compact and minimalistic design for ease of towing, no additional landing gear will need to be considered.
3.1.6.2.
Navigational Equipment
For any form of transport, navigation is of utmost importance. As with conventional hang gliders, weight-shifting will be used as the method of attitude control for the military hang glider. Suitable navigational equipment will include a variometer, radio and GPS where the variometer will also provide the functions of an altimeter to indicate altitude, airspeed, climb rate and sink rate. While gliding, the variometer and GPS may not be easily accessible and will need to be mounted in an easy viewing position such as the control bar. The radio unit will be voiceactivated via a headset worn by the pilot and therefore will not need to be mounted onto the control bar.
3.1.7. Special Systems and Miscellaneous
As the hang glider is a form of transport used for soldier deployment, mounted weapons are not necessary. Similarly, weapons would be incredibly difficult to utilize for a hang glider pilot. Lastly, firing projectiles from a hang glider would greatly affect the dynamics of its flight, possibly causing loss of control as well as giving away the gliders position. For these reasons, the use of weapons will be limited to ground combat and will not be considered in the design of this hang glider.
Page | 15

3.1.8. Reliability and Maintainability
The glider must be able to satisfy all the requirements described by the in the 2006 HGMA Airworthiness Standards, which include flight and load testing. It is also to follow a maintenance schedule as described by the HGMA.
All maintenance and services should be carried out by a certified aircraft mechanic who is familiar with the vehicle.
3.1.9. Unification Level
The hang glider should be able to be safely and comfortably piloted without removing the centre of gravity from the centreline during forward gliding. The chosen aerofoils are limited to those available for current hang gliders. In future iterations of the design, the hang glider could possibly be designed to carry either an extra passenger or payload package such that the hang glider may be able to be used as a taxi.
3.2. Statistical Analysis
3.2.1. Statistics of Civilian Application Hang Gliders
At present hang gliders are almost exclusively used for recreational or sporting purposes. Thus far there have been no known military applications of hang gliders. In turn, this limited the ability to compare relevant statistical data due to the absence of such aircraft. Therefore the next most relevant statistical data to be investigated were civilian application hang gliders. A trade study of existing hang gliders was undertaken to gather the initial estimates of the take-off and empty weights of the hang glider. Subsequently other parameters Page | 16

such as the aspect ratio and wing span could be estimated based on this initial guess of the take-off weight to be utilised in the proposed design.
3.2.1.1.
Empty Weight
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-1 shows the statistical trend of how the empty weight varies with take-off weight.
Figure 3-1 - Empty Weight Technology Diagram
A linear trendline was fitted to this data where the equation of this trendline defines the A and B variables of Roskams equation shown below (Roskam, 1985).
where
and
which was derived from the trendline of the
technology diagram. Also note that the take-off weight of the hang glider was defined earlier as the sum of the empty weight and the crew weight, such that:
Page | 17
Solving Roskams equation and the equation for take-off weight simultaneously calculates the takeoff and empty weights of our proposed design. These weights were found to be:
3.2.1.2.
Aspect Ratio
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-2 shows the statistical trend of how the aspect ratio varies with take-off weight using a fitted linear trendline. On the basis of a takeoff weight of 134.3 kg as calculated earlier, a aspect ratio of 7.253 metres was estimated.
Page | 18
Figure 3-2 - Aspect Ratio Technology Diagram
3.2.1.3.
Wing Span
The technology diagram shown in Figure 3-3 shows the statistical trend of how the wing span varies with take-off weight using a fitted linear trendline. On the basis of a takeoff weight of 134.3 kg as calculated earlier, a wing span of 10.62 metres was estimated.
Page | 19
Figure 3-3 - Wing Span Technology Diagram
3.2.2. Statistics of Parachutes
Parachutes do not utilize any form of propulsion system. Because of this, the design take-off weight is simply the total weight of the parachute system and the pilot. Similarly the empty weight is simply the total weight of the parachute and the container in which it is packed. Therefore any technology diagram developed to compare various existing parachutes would show a straight regression line with a gradient of one, assuming the weight of the user or payload were kept consistent. Comparing the parameters of different military application parachutes:
Parachute Type Maximum Suspended Weight (kg) Parachute Assembly Weight (kg) Diameter (m) Rate of Descent @ 90.72 kg (m/s) MC1-1C MC1-1B Round Round 136 136 13 13 10.67 10.67 4.27 5.43 Forward Speed @ 90.72 kg (m/s) 3.66 4.27 4.27
Page | 20

SET-10 T-10C Round Round 159 159 13 13 10.67 10.67 3.62 5.03 3.58 4.47 N/A
3.3. Mission Profile

The hang glider was designed with a mission profile in mind. Initially the hang glider, along with the pilot, will be taxied to the desired launch altitude by a cargo aircraft with a tailgate such as a CASA-212. A tailgate would be preferable as it would allow the hang gliders to be deployed safely without obstructions. Upon reaching the desired launch altitude and location, the hang glider pilot would then take-off by selflaunching from the tailgate opening of the aircraft. Controlled gliding to the desired location would then occur until the landing point is reached, where thereafter the hang glider may be taxied and packed away. The intended mission profile is depicted below in Figure 3-4.
1 Start-up
2 Taxi
3 Take-off 4 Descent 5 Landing 6 Taxi 7 Shutdown
Figure 3-4 - Mission Profile
3.4. Weight Estimation

AS can be seen from this mission profile, at no point does the hang glider require or consume fuel. Thus, the weight estimation taken earlier still applies, which gave the following values for a crew weight of 100kg.
Page | 21
3.5. Sensitivity Analysis

The relative effects on the take-off weight of changing the main parameters of the hang glider can be determined by performing sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity analyses can also be used to indicate which parameters limit or otherwise have little effect on the overall design. In turn the final design and configuration can be devised with these sensitivities in mind.
In the Technical Task, the initial weight was estimated based on the statistics of existing hang gliders and a regression line with A and B constants was obtained. These A and B constants, among others to be calculated, can in turn be used to determine the sensitivities using formulae derived by Arjomandi 2010. The hand calculations of the sensitivity analyses can be found in Appendix B.
The necessary constants that were used in the sensitivity analyses were calculated as follows:
Note that A and B were the regression line constants that were derived in the statistical analysis based on existing hang gliders. For the constant, D, there was no payload weight as the gear of the pilot is considered a part of the crew weight such Page | 22

that D is simply equal to the crew weight. For the calculations of the constants C and F, the mass fuel fraction Mff was equal to unity since the weight of the hang glider is constant throughout the phases of the mission profile as there is no fuel being consumed. Similarly the mass fractions of the reserve and unusable fuel, Mreserve and MFunusable, were equal to zero since no fuel would be held onboard the hang glider.
3.5.1. Sensitivity to Empty Weight
The empty weight of the hang glider is the total weight minus the pilot and his gear. If the empty of the hang glider were increased, the effect of this was determined as below:
The sensitivity of the take-off weight to empty weight was found to be 5.142; hence for every kilogram increase in the empty weight, the take-off weight is required to increase by 5.142 kilograms.
3.5.2. Sensitivity to Payload Weight
If extra payload besides the pilot and his gear were to be included in the mission specification, the effect of this was determined as below:
Page | 23
The sensitivity of the take-off weight to payload weight was found to be 1.241; hence for every kilogram of payload added, the take-off weight is required to increase by 1.241 kilograms. Thus the sensitivity of the take-off weight to the payload weight is almost halved compared to the sensitivity to the empty weight. Therefore it appears that the empty weight has a much larger effect than the payload weight on the design of the hang glider.
3.6. Aircraft Sizing

The hang glider was sized according to FAR 103 and the HGMA standards. The design requirements consisted of stall speed, glide ratio and landing distance. The sizing process is explained in further detail below.
3.6.1. Sizing Parameters
3.6.1.1.
Stall Speed
For stall speed requirements, it was noted that in a glide, weight must equal lift, which yields:
Rearranging this equation indicates that wing loading at stall depends on stall velocity and the coefficient of lift of the vehicle:
Page | 24

At sea level, the density of air is given as 1.227 kg/m3. At a deployment altitude of 3000m, the density of air can be found as 0.90916 kg/m3. From our statistical analysis, we found that the stall speed of hang gliders falls within 10-22 mph, or 4.47-9.834 ms1. If we assume to our maximum lift coefficient to be 1.7, which seems reasonable according to our statistical analysis, we have a wing loading of at least 195.2 kg/m2 in order to satisfy our conditions at stall.
3.6.1.2.
Glide Ratio
This glider has a glide ratio requirement of 15. Whilst moving at a constant speed in still air, the glide ratio is numerically equal to the lift to drag ratio, but it is not necessarily equal during other manoeuvres.
During glide, vdown should be equivalent to the terminal velocity of the glider, as its descent is being slowed by the glider acting as a parasheet. Thus, vdown can be calculated as (NASA 2010):
where cD is the coefficient of drag of the vehicle downwards. According to Culp 2000, this is approximately 0.75 for a hang glider or parasheet. Rearranging these two equations gives a wing loading of:
Given that a maximum forward flight speed of 200km/h is a performance parameter, we can calculate the wing loading to be 6.3 kg/m3 in order to satisfy our glide ratio condition. Page | 25
3.6.1.3.
Landing Distance
Wing loading during landing can be calculated as
Due to the higher angle of attack, and the heavy flare that pilots use, the stall speed at landing is generally higher than that for level flight, and so can be assumed to be 1012 ms-1. The maximum lift coefficient is similarly different, and will be assumed to be 2.3. From this, we have a wing loading of 146.9 kg/m3 order to satisfy our conditions at landing.
3.6.2. Design Point
As our glider does not have a power loading, a matching diagram is not needed, and a design point can be taken from our wing loadings, which yields:
Given a take-off weight of 134.3 kg, we can find that our wingspan must be 31 m2.
Page | 26
4. Preliminary Design
The following conceptual designs are primarily based on existing configuration of the present day recreational hang glider. From Figure 4-1 it can be seen that the main structure of the hang glider consists of keel, cross bar and the leading edge tubes. The leading edge tubes provide the sweep desired sweep angle, while both the keep and crossbar provide structural rigidity laterally and longitudinally. These tubes make up the structural frame of the hang glider. The keel is then connected to the control bar. This control bar utilizes the weight of the pilot to encourage pitch and roll directional changes. The control bar is connected to the cross bar via flying wires. In addition there are also wires from the leading edge keel post and trailing edge keel post to aid in controllability and stability. The wires are the actuators which promote manoeuvrability.
Page | 27
Figure 4-1 - Hand Sketch of Glider Configuration
The vertical structure is held via a vertical post known as the king post. The king post translates directly above the control bar and protrudes above the sail. Connected to the Page | 28

king post is a network of wires used for landing. These landing wires help incorporate pitch movements, aiding the landing controllability of the hang glider.
The incorporation of the pilot can be seen from Figure 4-2. The pilot is held by a pouch which is situated just above the control for ease of access to the control panel. The pouch is connected to a network of straps and safety harness all connected to the king post. The pilot manoeuvres through the production of moment forces. The pilot harnesses are directly connected to the king post, which results in the pilot being structurally fixed. The pilot then uses the control bar (which is connected to the cross bar through flying wires) to alter the sail angle and hence producing a moment arm to change direction.
Page | 29
Figure 4-2 - Sketch of pilot configuration on conventional hang glider
Page | 30

The final component of the hang glider to be added to the system is the sail. The sail sweeps over the leading edge tube and extends to the rear till the end of the keel. The sail is primarily the wing of the aircraft. The sail is works very similar to the sail on a sailing ship. The sail slows down air flow producing a pressure difference between the top of the sail and the bottom of the sail. This pressure difference to some degree produces lift. However, this lift component is less than the gravitational force pulling the glider down. Hence the term glider theoretically means prolonged falling.
4.1. Concept Design Number 1

The first concept design of a military application hang glider can be seen from Figure 4-4. This design is focuses on increasing manoeuvrability of the hang glider for military purposes. A closer detailed figure can be seen from Figure 4-5. From previous experimental bombers designed during the Second World War, forward swept wing configuration on fighter jets provided heightened manoeuvrability. The forward swept configuration reversed the airflow along the wing; the airflow flows from the wing tip to the wing root, the reversal of reverse swept wing configuration. This forward swept wing prevented stall at the wing tips at higher angles of attack this can be seen Figure 4-3. This design also incorporates a parachute which is used for safety landing purposes Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-3 - Air flow over forward swept wing and backwards swept wing (Wilson 2008)
Page | 31
The ability to prevent stall at higher angles of attack gives rise to heightened ability to maneuver and the ability to control this maneuverability. Hence this design incorporates the addition of ailerons at the wing tip. The control ailerons at the wing tip will allow for heightened roll ability as the magnitude of the moment force is highest at the wing tip. The wing tip control surfaces maybe controlled electronically through an onboard computer which can be situated underneath the parachute. The commands from the pilot to the control surfaces for this design may be very difficult. The incorporation of electronic control adds extra weight to the hang glider, which already struggles to induce significant lift. The additional weight from the accompanying electronic control will reduce the glide range, resulting in a limited mission profile.
The overall configuration of this design concept provides good ideas in terms of designing a glider that is more focused on the military and the potential tasks involved. The aspect of a forward swept wing with heightened manoeuvrability controls work together to enhance the glider to be able to change direction; this application can be used to infiltrate an area with skyscrapers which require high controllability to manoeuvre. The disadvantages of this concept are the design of a control panel and the electronic actuators required to control the ailerons require some sort of sensor interaction. The pilot him/herself will not be able to continually adjust control surfaces to stabilize the glider. As such, a feedback loop computer system is required to monitor the control surfaces and this addition of electronic device results in extra weight, which is highly undesirable.
Page | 32
Figure 4-4 - Concept Design Number 1
Page | 33
Figure 4-5 - Detailed sketches of concept 1
Page | 34
Figure 4-6 - Parachute Deployment
Page | 35

4.2. Concept Design Number 2
From Figure 4-7 shows the incorporation of a vertical tail in the previous concept design. The vertical tail is designed to reduce aerodynamic slip and provide stability in the yaw direction of the glider. The vertical tail design will be directly attached to the keel post. The keel post is the main structural post through the middle of the glider, theoretically be able to sufficiently support the weight of the vertical wing comfortably. This concept allows the potential of again, increasing stability of the glider while still designing the glider to have a high degree of manoeuvrability.
Figure 4-7 - Image of vertical tail used for stabilization (Marshall Brain 2008)
Page | 36
Figure 4-8 - Vertical tail concept design
Page | 37
Figure 4-9 - Detailed Sketch of Vertical Tail
Page | 38

5. Weight Balance and Stability Analysis
An aircrafts balance and stability is largely governed by the location of its centre of gravity (CG). For a hang glider in particular, the lateral stability is also important along with the longitudinal stability since the roll mechanics of the hang glider is controlled by the CG shifting performed by the pilot. In order to calculate the CG location, the weight of each component or subsystem in the hang glider was required. For this task the hang glider was divided into the following subsystems:
Control bar Pilot and harness Frame (keel, leading edge tubes and cross bar)
In this analysis the weight of the fabric was neglected due to its small weight and as its location is not fixed due to the flexing nature of the fabric. Furthermore, the CGs of each subsystem was assumed to be co-located with their geometric centres. This assumption is normally only applicable to objects of uniform density, however for a preliminary CG analysis this will provide a good estimation that can be further refined in the future if necessary. Due to the scarcity of statistical data regarding the individual weights of hang glider components, the weights were estimated using ProEngineer CAD software functions with material densities input.
Table 5-1 - Weight Breakdown of the Hang Glider Subsystems
Aircraft Subsystem Frame Wframe Control Bar Wbar Pilot and Harness Wpilot
Percentage of Take-off Weight 18.62 6.92 25.54
Using the weights and CG locations of each subsystem which are presented in Table 5-1, the aircrafts actual CG with respect to each axis was determined using the equations detailed below. For this hang glider, X denotes the longitudinal axis, Y denotes the lateral axis and Z is the zenith axis. Page | 39
The CG envelope was then generated to determine the forward and aft ranges of locations where the CG must lie in order to be stable, expressed in terms of a percentage of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC). These were calculated at the different operating conditions that might occur in regular use. For a hang glider, there would only be two points: empty weight, and takeoff weight. These are shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 - CG Envelope
5.1. Static Margin
Page | 40

Static Margin (SM) is critical in the assessment of longitudinal stability, and is defined as the distance between the neutral point and the centre of gravity position, expressed as a percentage of the mean aerodynamic centre (MAC), as expressed in the following equation:
The neutral point is defined as the point where the moment of the vehicle does not vary with angle of attack.
Due to the centre of gravity travel associated with the vehicle and as recommended for general aviation aircraft, static margin must be at least 10%. As can be found from our CG analysis, we have a static margin greater than 10%, even at our most aft CG, which is acceptable.
Page | 41
5.2.
6. Aerodynamic Analysis
The following section will discuss the aerodynamic properties of the hang glider, in particular, the lift distribution of the wing, the lift to drag ratio, and the fineness ratio.
6.1. Lift distribution

A necessary part of the conceptual design of the hang glider was to ensure that sufficient lift could be produced by the wings in order for the aircraft to takeoff and sustain flight. Abbot and von Doenhoff 1949 present a method of estimating the lift distribution which describes the total lift generated by the airfoil.
where
is aerodynamic twist,
is effective lift curve slope, S is wing area, c is is the aspect ratio and the L values are coefficients
chord and b is the wing span,
found by Abbot and von Doenhoff.
From this, taper ratio and wing geometry can be selected to optimise the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle.
6.2. L/D Determination

The lift to drag ratio of an aircraft provides a good indication of the aerodynamic efficiency. This value is also numerically equivalent to the glide ratio of a glider, in steady flight, which is a performance parameter that must be met.
Page | 42

CFD analysis was undertaken on the model at the operating conditions specified. This resulted in a maximum L/D ratio of 16. This compares favourably to other hang glider designs, as shown in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1 - Technology Diagram of Glide Ratio
6.3. Fineness Ratio and Drag of Structure

The fineness ratio describes the overall shape of a streamlined body. Specifically, it is the ratio of the length of the body to its maximum width, thus aircraft that would be considered short and fat would have a low fineness ratio, whilst those that are long and skinny have high fineness ratios. As our hang glider does not have a fuselage, the fineness ratio has taken about the harness that the pilot would be in. The wires and struts connecting this structure to the wings were ignored.
The length of the glider was 2.22m, with a width of 1.09m, which results in a fineness ratio of 2.04. With a pilot in the harness, we can assume this structure to roughly be a cylinder with a cone pointed into the airflow. If we use statistical data from Scott 2010, this will result in a structural drag coefficient of approximately 0.2.
Page | 43
Figure 6-2 - Drag Coefficient of Cylindrical Bodies in Axial Flow
Page | 44
7. Performance Analysis
The vehicle was designed to meet the following criteria, as per the technical task, and the compliance is detailed below in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1 - Compliance with performance parameters
Parameter Crew Weight
Value 100 kg
Compliance Designed to carry an average adult (70 kg) with 30 kg payload
Glide Ratio
15.0
Aerofoil easily achieves this lift to drag ratio
Deployment Altitude
3000 m
Designed to be dropped at this altitude
Landing Distance Maximum Flight Speed
20 m 100 km/h
Used in sizing the aircraft Used in sizing the aircraft
Page | 45
8. Three View Drawings
Page | 46
9. References
Airborne. (2004). Airborne C4 Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/Airborne_C4_brochure.pdf Airborne. (2004). Airborne Fun Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/Airborne_Fun_brochure.pdf Airborne. (2004). Airborne Sting 3 Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hanggliders/brochures/Airborne_Sting3_Bro.pdf Airborne. (2004). REV Brochure. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airborne.com.au/images/hang_glider_brochures/REV_brochure.pdf Avian. (2010). Cheetah Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_cheetah.php Avian. (2010). Java Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_java.php Avian. (2010). Rio Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_rio.php Brain, M. A. (2008, October 30). How Airplanes Work. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from How Stuff Works: http://science.howstuffworks.com/airplane19.htm Carr, G. (2003). Flight Safety Australia. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/nov/56/57.pdf Culp, R. (2000). Parachute Descent Calculations. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://my.execpc.com/~culp/rockets/descent.html FAR. (2010). Part 103 Ultralight Vehicles. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airweb.faa.gov FAR. (2010). Part 23 Airworthiness Standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.airweb.faa.gov Gliding, H. (2010). Aerotowing. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.hanggliding.org/wiki/Aerotowing HGFA. (2010). HGFA Technical Manual. Hallidays Point: Hang Gliding Federation of Australia. HGMA. (2006). 2006 HGMA Airworthiness Standards. Hang Glider Manufacturers Association. Icaro. (2010). Easy Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_easy.php Icaro. (2010). Orbiter Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_orbiter.php
Page | 47

Icaro. (2010). z8 Specs. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.avian.hanggliding.dk/html/SpecSheets/Spec1_z8.php Krauss. (2008). Airfoil Investigation Database. Retrieved June 9, 2010, from worldofkrauss.com Maziar, A. (2009). Aeronautical Engineering I: Course Notes. Adelaide: The School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide. Maziar, A. (2010). Aircraft Design: Course Notes. Australia: The School of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Adelaide. Megson, T. (1999). Aircraft Structures for Engineering Students. MA: Elsevier Science. Moyes. (2005). Hang Glider Products. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.moyes.com.au/products.asp NASA. (2010). Terminal Velocity. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K12/airplane/termv.html Nelson, R. (1998). Flight Stability & Automatic Control. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Paragear. (2010). MC-1C Steerable Troop Parachute Assembly. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.paragear.com/templates/parachute.asp?group=451&t2parent=2&parent=447&level=3 Raymer, D. (2006). Aircraft Design: A Conceptuial Approach (4th ed.). Virginia: American Institute of aeronautics and Astronautics Inc. . Roskam, J. (1985). Airplane Design Parts I-VIII. Kansas: Roskam Aviation and Engineering Corporation. Sheehy. (1992). The Hang Glider's Technical Notebook. Pasadena: Faoilean Press. Spelco. (2010). Gryphon Attack Glider. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.spelco.eu/library/media/solutions/Gryphon.pdf UIUC. (2008). UIUC Airfoil Coordinates Database. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from http://www.soton.ac.uk/~jps7/D8%20website/UIUC%20%Airfoil%20Coordinates%20Databse.htm White, T. (1992). Swords of Lightning: Special Forces and the Changing Face of Warfare. London: Brassey's. Wilson, J. (2008, September 18). Fact Sheets. Retrieved June 7, 2010, from NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/Popups/FS-008-DFRC_popup2.html Wing, W. (2009). T2 Model. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.willswing.com/prod2.asp?theClass=hg&theModel=T2
Page | 48
Appendix A Detailed Drawings
Page | 49
Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis Calculations
(for a non-fuel aircraft) (if no payload initially)
Page | 50

Military Hang Glider Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Military Hang Glider Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MECHENG 4108 AIRCRAFT DESIGN

AIRCRAFT DESIGN PROJECT

HANG GLIDER FOR MILITARY APPLICATION

June 11, 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

Jia Yao Cui Date:

Tuyen Nguyen Date:

Joshua NORTHEAST Date:

Jake Phoenix Date:

Quoc Hung Tran Date:

Hang Glider Design 2010

2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.2.4. 3.

3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.3. 3.4.

Mission Profile ..............................................................................................21 Weight Estimation.........................................................................................21

Hang Glider Design 2010

3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.6.

Weight Balance and Stability Analysis................................................................39 5.1. Static Margin .................................................................................................40

Appendix A Something.............................................................................................49 Appendix B Sensitivity Analysis Calculations .........................................................50

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

Figure 1-1 - Paratroopers

Hang Glider Design 2010

Figure 1-2 - Airborne Troops

Figure 1-3 - Gryphon Attack Glider

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

2. Literature Review and Market Evaluation

2.1. Literature Review

Hang Glider Design 2010

Figure 2-1 - The Gryphon Parachute System

Hang Glider Design 2010

2.2. Market Review

Hang Glider Design 2010

Table 2-2 - Airborne C4 Hang Glider Specifications (Airborne 2004)

Wing area Wing span Aspect ratio

C4-13 12.7m2 (137ft2) 9.6m (31.5ft) 7.3

C4-13.5 13.5m2 (146ft2) 10m (32.8ft) 7.4

C4-14 14.3m2 (154ft2) 10.4m (34.1ft) 7.6 Page | 7

Hang Glider Design 2010

2.2.3. Avian JAVA

Table 2-3 - Avian Java Hang Glider Data (Avian 2010)

Hang Glider Design 2010

Table 2-4 - Moyes LightSpeed RS data (Moyes 2005)

Hang Glider Design 2010

3.1. Technical Task

Hang Glider Design 2010

3.1.1. Standard Requirements

3.1.2. Technical Level of the Product

3.1.3. Performance Parameters

Hang Glider Design 2010

Value 100 kg 15.0 3000 m 20 m 100 km/h

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Design 2010

Hang Glider Cost Estimation

3.1.5. Power Plant Type and Requirements

3.1.6. Main System Parameters

Hang Glider Design 2010

3.1.7. Special Systems and Miscellaneous

Hang Glider Design 2010