parawing
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| parawing [2007/03/09 07:42] – ed | parawing [2008/07/19 23:33] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| * therefore 1m2 parachute would be required | * therefore 1m2 parachute would be required | ||
| * equivalent parawing? | * equivalent parawing? | ||
| - | |||
| - | Ideas: | ||
| - | * [[http:// | ||
| - | Links: | ||
| - | * Slope Soaring Sim (Free flight sim for mac and windows) [[http:// | ||
| - | * | ||
| - | |||
| - Feedback from MC: If you want to split up tasks, I could work on 2 way comms. | - Feedback from MC: If you want to split up tasks, I could work on 2 way comms. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 30: | ||
| It should be possible to have a much smaller payload, perhaps around the mass of a servo+batt+electronics, | It should be possible to have a much smaller payload, perhaps around the mass of a servo+batt+electronics, | ||
| + | |||
| ed: - Although reduced weight is a good thing in general, weight will help us control the wing. Also, when you factor in cameras and the actual mechanics, 750g seems like a more realistic target to me- we'll still have to be building light to get it in under that! | ed: - Although reduced weight is a good thing in general, weight will help us control the wing. Also, when you factor in cameras and the actual mechanics, 750g seems like a more realistic target to me- we'll still have to be building light to get it in under that! | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ideas: | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | [[[projects:: | ||
parawing.1173426126.txt.gz · Last modified: 2008/07/19 23:31 (external edit)