Delta Club 82 école de deltaplane près de Toulouse Montauban
Apprendre à voler en deltaplane - Trouver une école de deltaplane
Baptême de l'air en deltaplane près de Toulouse Montauban
Météo vol libre
Bibliotheque du Deltaplane
Photos de deltaplane
Vidéo deltaplane
Sites de vol libre
Occasion vol libre : deltaplane, parapente...
Les ailes et les fabricants de deltaplane
Forum du deltaplane


Le Delta CLub 82 est aussi sur Facebook
Ecole de deltaplane dans la région de Toulouse - MontaubanAgendaDivers deltaplane et vol libreDelta Club 82 Ecole de deltaplane

>>> Hang glider AOLUS


Bible home » Hang glider : Aolus

If you have additional information (ex: specificity of piloting, various characteristics...) on the hang glider Aolus by Spectra Aircraft, you can supplement his card by adding your comment or write to us :

Hang glider card : Aolus
Name :
AOLUS
Manufacturer :
Spectra Aircraft
Year :
1981
Pilot level :
-
Manual :
-
Document(s) :
-
 
Hang glider model :
-
Wing area (m²) :
-
Wing span(m) :
-
Aspect ratio :
-
Hang glider weight (kg) :
-
Minimum pilot weight (kg) :
-
Maximum pilot weight (kg) :
-
Minimum speed (km/h) :
-
Maximum speed (km/h) :
-
Max glide ratio (L/H) :
-
Max glide ratio speed (km/h) :
     -
Minimum sink rate (m/s) :
     -
Packed length (m) :
-
Packed length short (m) :
-
Number of battens :
-
Nose angle (°) :
-

Comments

John Reisig/Owner-General Manager Spectra Aircraft
02/03/2005

Nose Angle - 150 Degrees Sizes - 150/170/190
Bow Sprit Design
I am finishing a screen play using my hang gliding experience as a background. As I gather more information in my research for the play, I will feed more information to you. I'm sorry my memory is not serving me perfectly well regarding my product. The design engineer was Carlos Moralles. John Reisig


 
15/01/2010

The Aolus was the first version of this planform from Spectra Aircraft. It had an extremely wide nose angle to minimize spanwise flow and maximize span efficiency. The tail was added to provide for pitch stability which would be lost due to the minimal sweep in the wings. A double surfaced, internal crossbar design followed, called the Sonic.


Mike Sandlin
25/05/2010

I had a lot of fun with my Aolus (was it spelled Aeolus originally?) I heard it described as "pitch weird and yaw funky", but I like that. It may have been Carlos who told me that tests had shown the washout tubes to have no needed pitch effect, but that they were put on for pilot expectations. Perhaps I flew without them, I don't recall. Assembly was flat on the ground, with tricky ways of getting that high tension sweep cable/bow sprit in place.


 
30/05/2010

I had many wonderful adventures with my Aolus learning cross country in Owens Valley in 1981. It was the second prototype. Carlos Miralles taught me to fly it off Cuesta Ridge in San Luis Obispo, California, and sold it to me for $500. After many hours, I took it to John Reisig at Spectra Aircraft who sleeved its already massive frame it and smoothed out the leading edges. It was a superb thermalling machine. In a strong, smooth core, you could push out past stall and flat-spin at 2000 fps. Unique and unbelievable. With that reflexed tail, it gave you a very secure feeling that it would recover from going over the falls in violent thermals. And fast landings in high-altitude-density air were helped by that bowsprit. When it dropped, you'd fly through the bars and hit the sail (no keel). My buddies who flew their Aoli in Owens Valley were Carlos, Bob Dunn and Mark Hanley. But the thing that made the Aolus such a great thermalling machine, that huge tail, may have kept it from attaining the best l/d between thermals. After I'd moved on to Comet-clones, I loaned it to Bill Dodson around 1985 and he made its last flight from Horseshoe. See for more details.
Rick Masters
Aoli, Comet Clones & Pod People
 


 
25/11/2010

Of course, the Aolus had a keel. I meant to type "no crossbar."


 
13/11/2011

Hi everybody , I am inquiring from Italy and would know if anyone can help me in finding a copy of the original construction plans of bow sprit gliders like Spectra Aolus , MosquitoUP, Stratus, etc.

I have in mind to work on the construction of a bow sprit glider similar to all of the above mentioned gliders but with many updates in aerodinamics.

Your help will be much appreciated
Best regards

Read more:


 
17/12/2013

any nose angle greater than 130 degrees is divergent so a small cannard also has to be run ahead of the c/g to stop divergent trim forces .. skeatez


 
25/01/2014

The statement that any nose angle beyond a certain point is divergent is not true and should be removed. The Flying Plank is an obvious example.


 
06/05/2017

the nose angle law is absolutely true and the builder of this hanglider dsaid himself it was divergent and you will find no manufacturer will build a glider and sell it if it goes over 130 degrees as i am moyes top designer and we dont kill people with divergent gliders so you should get up to pace about that before you get your self killed its pilots like you we dont forget erging on faulty designs ...


 
06/05/2017

the flying bplank was a ridgid wing not a flex wing get your fact straigth mr . masters and if your the rick masters i knew then think again i have heard of you but there are probaly plenty of rick masrters .. ridgid wings can go over 130 degree nose angle but flex wing are divergent if they do some where you are not educated enough about this ..


 
06/05/2017

only a cannard can stop flex wings with nose angles wider than 130 degrees to stabilize the pitch this is why my statement is not removed because every manufavcturer of his worth know this.


 
06/05/2017

why do you think comet is 120 nose angle ...and every comet clove never goes over 130 degrees ...just because you survived a divergent glider and you never respected it that doesnt mean you are right in asumming glider safety is only there for a joke ... we have had many deaths because of this nose angle rule in flexwings ..and at least you had some sence to go and get a glider that wasnt divergent may be you not telling us the truth ..


 
06/05/2017

my name is on the first latest topless gliders by moyes the csx and later the rx and rx pro so if you think i am stupid ask bill moyes himself about looseing your pitch when flex wings go over 130 deggress nose angles ...just give him a call and say dose a glider go divergent if the nose angle goes over 130 degrees and he started hanglideing in the beginning ..go on proove us saine people all wrong by your assumption .. go on please do us all a favour rick since your the top gye around here and get me banned while your at it ...


 
06/05/2017

one thing about people on the net who use shame .. they have no idea about anything ..trollers of the deap ...


 
08/05/2017

let me try to explain in terms you might understand why flexwings cant go over 130 degrees nose angle but some rigid wings can .... ancient egypt mariners in sail craft useing a half rogallo type sail set up knew back then and we now have rediscoverd again now in rogallo flex wings .. that is the nose angle cant go over 130 degrees or half that for rogallo type sail yatchs sweep back to 65 degrees which the ancients used to do so it is not a new discovery they knew about it back then ...is because there is no rigid stress modulus so to speek in flex wings or ancient type sails and the spar is also the swivel point where the sail oscilates around ... so it is capable of luffing ... where as the stress modulus in rigid wings holds the sail firm so it has a greatly reduced effect of twisting or luffing but it is still there but very small and this is the key to why this law is for real...boeing 787 uses high stress modulus materials and the 130 rule aplies but they deny this but it is there because they admit they do have a problem with it as the wings are made of plastic and there is a one inch oscilation up and down the wing which they try to reduce by useing active aelerons in conjunction with the auto pilot hence the pillot cannot fly the 787 by him self ebven though they say he can because this oscilation is a luffing oscilation which reduces the incidence activation on the tail .. if the boeing had a cannard it would not violate the 130 nose rule and fly allright and the pilot could control the plane himself but this is where the italian triple tandum wing piaggio has a tail and a cannard and can fly even when the tail incidence is reduced because it is not inherently divergent .. so what about a typical cessna ..well it uses lower steress modulus materials and it absorbs the oscilatuion moving along the wing to such an extent the tail incidence is not compremised and works to counter the pitching moment ..but would work better if it had a cannard as well like the rutan homebuilt aircraft 'bird ''..the flying flee is the worse case sonerio ever built it is totaly divergent because it totaly violate s the 130 deghree nose angle rule because it is neither ba cannard or a tail it is a lifting tail which was banned from aviatio 100 years ago .. but people still try their luck .. biplanes are inherently ok because they absorb the oscilation and are ok .. so now we come to flex wings which have absolutely no way of absorbing the luffing oscilation s moving up and down the wing and have absolutely no way of activating the incidence with out a canard but except for one fact of nature .. she has allowed us to just scrape in stability if we dont go over 130 degrees swivel nose angle so the oscilations arrive ahead of the c/g if the nose swivel angle is less than 130 degrees but if we go over this the oscolations arrive behingd the c/g anf the aircraft is imputant and not virile so the incidence will not active ...these oscolations travel at the speed of sound and nmove from the luffing tip to the keel and when they meet at the keel create a lift centroid effect which must travel faster forward than the aircraft it self so it arrives ahead of ther c/g to be virile enough to activate the incidence to counter the pitch by keeping the nose swivel angle degrees bellow 130 ...anything else is divergent ..


 
08/05/2017

let me try to explain in terms you might understand why flexwings cant go over 130 degrees nose angle but some rigid wings can .... ancient egypt mariners in sail craft useing a half rogallo type sail set up knew back then and we now have rediscoverd again now in rogallo flex wings .. that is the nose angle cant go over 130 degrees or half that for rogallo type sail yatchs sweep back to 65 degrees which the ancients used to do so it is not a new discovery they knew about it back then ...is because there is no rigid stress modulus so to speek in flex wings or ancient type sails and the spar is also the swivel point where the sail oscilates around ... so it is capable of luffing ... where as the stress modulus in rigid wings holds the sail firm so it has a greatly reduced effect of twisting or luffing but it is still there but very small and this is the key to why this law is for real...boeing 787 uses high stress modulus materials and the 130 rule aplies but they deny this but it is there because they admit they do have a problem with it as the wings are made of plastic and there is a one inch oscilation up and down the wing which they try to reduce by useing active aelerons in conjunction with the auto pilot hence the pillot cannot fly the 787 by him self ebven though they say he can because this oscilation is a luffing oscilation which reduces the incidence activation on the tail .. if the boeing had a cannard it would not violate the 130 nose rule and fly allright and the pilot could control the plane himself but this is where the italian triple tandum wing piaggio has a tail and a cannard and can fly even when the tail incidence is reduced because it is not inherently divergent .. so what about a typical cessna ..well it uses lower steress modulus materials and it absorbs the oscilatuion moving along the wing to such an extent the tail incidence is not compremised and works to counter the pitching moment ..but would work better if it had a cannard as well like the rutan homebuilt aircraft 'bird ''..the flying flee is the worse case sonerio ever built it is totaly divergent because it totaly violate s the 130 deghree nose angle rule because it is neither ba cannard or a tail it is a lifting tail which was banned from aviatio 100 years ago .. but people still try their luck .. biplanes are inherently ok because they absorb the oscilation and are ok .. so now we come to flex wings which have absolutely no way of absorbing the luffing oscilation s moving up and down the wing and have absolutely no way of activating the incidence with out a canard but except for one fact of nature .. she has allowed us to just scrape in stability if we dont go over 130 degrees swivel nose angle so the oscilations arrive ahead of the c/g if the nose swivel angle is less than 130 degrees but if we go over this the oscolations arrive behingd the c/g anf the aircraft is imputant and not virile so the incidence will not active ...these oscolations travel at the speed of sound and nmove from the luffing tip to the keel and when they meet at the keel create a lift centroid effect which must travel faster forward than the aircraft it self so it arrives ahead of ther c/g to be virile enough to activate the incidence to counter the pitch by keeping the nose swivel angle degrees bellow 130 ...anything else is divergent ..


 
08/05/2017

there are rules within rules with the 130 degree nose angle swivel angle rule and that is a cannard always works but reflex and tails do not ...so if you use a cannard it must be of equal size to the main lifting wing or less than but never greater than the main lifting wing or else it will go divergent ...if youy use the 130 rule on flex wings you can use a cannard providing the cannard is equal to or less than the main wing and of course cannard means infront of the wing at all times so some biplanes with different size wings cannot use a smaller wing with a bigger wing if at some perticular attitude the smaller wing is at some point behind or level with the main larger wing but there are biplane which are designed like this and are actualy divergent so the smaller wing must be staggered ahead of the main larger wing at all times or have equal size but not behind with a smaller wing as it starts to act like a lifting tial which is a no-no ..so flex wings can use reflex and a tail providing they are 130 degrees or less in there nose angle but can use a cannard any time providing it is equal to the main wing or less than and out in front never behind or jusyt underneither as it will cause the luffing oscilations to slow down and cause the lift centroid to arrive behind the c/g and not activate any incidence and goes divergent .. it is not complicated if you can see what is ment by virility and inmputency in aiurcraft .. the trouble is many aircraft are virile but their sales pitch is imputant and many imputant aircraft have virile sales pitch so byer beware your a grown adult and if yopu cant understaand this the shit will happen and if you go on feelings bad luick nature dosent care about your feelings better you undeers stand the rules ..


 
08/05/2017

triple tandum wings are the ultimate aircraft with the widest envolope and crack ahead of the c/g and do everything perfectly ...they have a cannard for speed control to stop divergency and a tail to stop tail slides plus all aircraft must crack and this is the biggest teller of correct design they crack ahead of the c/g proveing the lift centroid is always arriving ahead of the c/g so its flight envolope is the widest so there is less pressure on the pilot as he dosent have to worry about the aircrafts ability to recover at all attitudes ...in contrast to milatary jets that only use a cannard go into tail slides and have recovery problems if flown outside their stall angle and military jets that only use a tail and are divergent and proof of this is the cannards will crack ahead of the c/g which is good but those with a tail crack behind the c/g which is bad and you only have to look up their huiistory of falure to see what aircraft made it and those who dont ...early aircraft had a tail and cannard but the wrong way around they had a lifting tail and a non lifting cannnard they only had to reverse this and use a lifting caanard out front and a non lifting tail out the back and the problem is solved but they did not understand the center of pressure movement back then realative to the c/g range and the aerodynamic moment all three together make flight and understanding all three together is vital ..


 
17/05/2017



hangliders flex wings 130 degree nose rule will eventualy go to tails and get rid of reflex because it restricts the aspect ratio and glide ratio so here it is where we will go from now on since manufacturers will not go to lower camber by convexing the undersurface to lower the camber to lessen the reflex and cut higher aspect ratiods for higher glide ratios so substituting the tail for a reflex basis we have unlimited degree of freedom to move on like rigid wings ..skeatesy