[JoeF]

Manned kite research?
George A. Argabrite
Ref: Aviation Week, December 27, 1927, p. 1087

AviationManCarrier1927ArgabriteLosAngeles.JPG (42.21 KiB) Viewed 7834 times

AviationManCarrier1927ArgabriteLosAngelesDETAIL.JPG (23.66 KiB) Viewed 7834 times

[JoeF]

Much thanks to ARP for some neat furthering on the Argabrite man; he found Ruth Argabrite standing in one of the versions of the man's experiments in Los Angeles in the circa 1920s. Over "200" flights ! ? Plural versions??? Maybe, not sure. Does one of the photos show absence of the undercarriage? Whereas another photo shows the attached undercarriage?

Very clear image of one of his builds:
https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/t31.0-8/10459010_742294779145610_690244495220901145_o.jpg

See page, image, and some text by someone:
https://www.facebook.com/bizarrelosangeles/photos/a.459142924127465.95572.150303461678081/742294779145610/?type=1&theater

[JoeF]

With ARP's synergy, I found:

April, 1927, p. 61, Popular Science
Remarkable Kite Built to Carry a Passenger

April1927p61PopularScienceARGABRITE.JPG (101.47 KiB) Viewed 7827 times

=========================== KEY OBSERVATIONS BY ARP ::::

Joe,

I think it is the same machine in both photos. Note the outer panels of the top wing are not filled in on both.

The leading edge of the main wing is formed by a wire in front of the cross spar. The material colour looks different, caused by the light and shade. What looks like sky in between the top and bottom wing, in the first photo, is the front of the wing from cross spar to wire leading edge. It is easier to see this on the second photo.

The top wing uses a series of triangulated struts supported from the cross spar.

If the designer did use the Platz glider as his guide he did not do a very good job and made it more complex than it needed to be. The aerofoil is compromised in the same way that the flat kites are with the sail pressing upwards on to the cross spar.

Tony

Excellent! So, the distant views might fool someone into not noticing the sail that is LE cabled for the main wing below the rigidly held upper wing set which I would call a form of a "high hat". Thanks for pointing that the upper high hat (my term) does not have sail coverage in the outside two spaces in the frame.
[[Cable-LE high-hated anachronistic-Rogallo kite with triangle frame undercarriage ready to receive control by ski kiters and hang gliders ??? ]]

AviationManCarrier1927ArgabriteDISCUSSION.jpg (65.78 KiB) Viewed 7824 times

On the second deck there are diagonal bracing wires holding the high hat form moving in any collapsed parallelogramatic fashion.

The original large photo with Ruth waving seems to show a tow line connected to the keel about ... say 6 in in front of the spreader beam.
The Popular Science article rehearsed a bridling that seems to have two tethers in PS photo. I am wondering if he ever towed using single-point tow. The undercarriage is not seen by me in the two different photos of the wing in flight.

TwoLinesARGABRITEversion.JPG (18.77 KiB) Viewed 7824 times

ShadowBeakSpaceARGABRITEkite.jpg (45.14 KiB) Viewed 7824 times

NoseBeakSpaceFormARGABRITE.JPG (22.23 KiB) Viewed 7824 times

ARGABRITEkiteDetail.JPG (34.25 KiB) Viewed 7822 times

[JoeF]

This image is 60% reduction from what one sees when clicking through HERE

========================================
60%

ArgabriteKite60percent.jpg (162.96 KiB) Viewed 7816 times

[ARP]

The wire braced triangulated framework between the two wings provides the rigidity and strength to support the craft and payload in flight.

The lower wing is fashioned like a high aspect ratio diamond kite. The 'flat' water ski-kites used a low aspect diamond configuration with a truncated tail. Both designs restricted the sail from forming a proper aerofoil shape as the cross spar is above the sail.

The in flight pictures are not clear enough to determine if the undercarriage is attached. Being a flimsy structure it may simply be too small to see at the distance the picture was taken from.

With two towing lines the front provides the main towing point with the rear providing some degree of pitch control to raise or lower the kite's attitude (power or de-power).

[JoeF]

The undercarriage consists of six beams and the basebar; then four wheels.
On the flight photos: I see no light interruptions for the six beams or wheels or basebar. At the same photos, details of lines and similarly sized parts do show. So, I am holding out that the flight photos are not showing any undercarriage for the reason there might not be undercarriage in those photos; this wrestles with ARP's suggestion that an undercarriage just might not show up.

With "200" flights, I am holding out for adjustments, variations, .... I wonder if family Argabrite has more photographs or notes on the flight adventure.

[ARP]

The Popular Science Monthly article shows the kite in flight and the undercarriage cannot be seen. In the ground shot it does appear to be in place. The text however is explicit in saying that the kite has an undercarriage. The two shots are from the same event or at least that is the impression given in the article.

[ARP]

Looking at the undercarriage more closely it could be a detachable unit. There appears to be struts on the undercarriage that line up with the keel and wing spar of the kite. ("The undercarriage consists of six beams and the basebar; then four wheels." this would make eight beams. ) If so, it would be a relatively simple job to un-lash the bindings to fly without undercarriage. It might be the undercarriage was only used when the kite was loaded with pilot or ballast? The undercarriage would be providing additional structural strength at the kite keel and wing spar junction.

[JoeF]

CLICK IMAGES TO BE SURE TO SEE FULL IMAGE INTNDED

=============================
Some counting: not my 6 and I contest 8, but now go for 9 beams:

UndercarriageStudyArgabrite.jpg (185.97 KiB) Viewed 7769 times

It does seem that the entire undercarriage, as ARP suggests, could be with an integrity that would be attachable and detachable.

I have found many newspapers in 1926 that carried the Los Angeles news about the Argabrite kite, but it seems they repeated the same photos and notes.

I am researching an inventor in Los Angeles of same name as George A. Argabrite, but I have not been able to verify whether the electrical guy is our kite guy or not; there are teasing data, but no firm connection yet, so I refrain from publishing notes of the electrical-radio guy.

Ruth shows up in some social circles.
Repeated photo

[ARP]

Joe,

If you are now including the axle in your beams count, then yes, a total of 9.

Of more interest, how would the main airframe be disassembled for transport? The triangulated structure supporting the wings seems to be complemented by a similar keel/fuselage triangulated assembly.

I cannot see a quick and easy way to set up and the dimensions of the structure would make transportation difficult.

May be the "wings" hinge back which would account for the centre section not having any covering. The joiners in the centre of the top wings could allow them to separate. The bottom hinge point would need to be a little way out from the keel to allow the wings to close on the keel/fuselage assembly. The L/E wires look like they have turnbuckle adjusters near the nose giving the wing tension on assembly. The undercarriage might lock the hinging wings which would mean that it has to be on when flying?