Flanagan "standard" pop pod?

I need somebody to point out where I might find a diagram of what's called the "Flanagan" standard pop pod.
tia
shockie B)

  Quoted Text Here  
It's in one of the old MIT journals. I'd have to dig a bit to find it.

The Rocky Mountain Canary uses it. It's in the competition plans at NAR.org:
http://nar.org/competition/plans/pdf/rockyMtCanary2.pdf
Al

thanks AL
shockie B)
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Also on the CRm magazine page.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Wheres' that? I have a couple of old issues of CRm and looking for the rest to add to my collection.
- Dale Windsor

  Quoted Text Here  
Email only.

Things to note:
The pod was developed many years ago.
It works good, but can be improved by doing the following: 1) Attach recovery system using an external Kevlar anchor cord to suspend the pod horizontally with spent motor so the pylon does not break upon landing. 2) Instead of the wooden hook and wire pin, simply use nested brass squares. The glider would have a short length of the larger "female" square epoxied onto a thin (1/32" thick) plywood spacer. The pod pylon would have a matching square epoxied onto a matching spacer and also have a smaller brass sqaure (the "male" part) epoxied into the larger with about 1/2" to 3/4" extending forward to mate with the square on the glider. This provides a secure attachemtn for the glider and it WILL NOT blow or fall off on the launch pad, yet it will fall off at the instant the motor ejection charge goes off.
You get this pod and attachment method in my Hornet Boost Glider kit. http://www.geocities.com/fredeshecter/index.html
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

  Quoted Text Here  
Good in theory, but I've learned that in order to prevent (or at least reduce) red barons, you need to tape the string to the top of the nose cone end of the pod.

Are you using nested brass squares or the "piece X" ?
I have had virtually ZERO red barons using the brass squares.
Key feature may be extremely fast glider seperation. With piece X and the wire pin, there is a small time lag.
Remember the old Manta pod test: Hold the glider mated to the pod and then lightly tap the nose cone. The pod should fall off the glider. WELL, that shows that wooden attach hooks have some "grab"/friction. With brass squares, the pod holds the glider up (on the pad in wind and during boost), but if you try to hold the glider, the pod fall backwards off of the glider - no "grab' or binding.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector

  Quoted Text Here  
Neither. But the tape fixes the problem with many different hook designs.

  Quoted Text Here  
Well, that claims to be a Flanigan Standard pod, but it is NOT. The original was definitely for 18mm motors, and was part of Chris's record setting Swift BG design. It's in an old MIT journal.

"Standard" was just for the pylon/attachment method and standoff dimensions of the plyon.
It was ratioed for any motor size, but the attachment was standard, so you could use one pod an any glider or you could switch pods on the same glider.
The only time things grew beyond interchangeable was when the power lever grew too great and the attachment (piece X) needed to get larger to transfer the load. I still had the same attachment size for my 18mm C6-3 pods and my 24mm D12-3 pods for the same gliders.
Notice I never said "poot face".
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector

  Quoted Text Here  
IIRC it was Geoff Landis that drew up the plan, and it was called the "Flanigan Standard Pod" with specific dimensions of the one he grabbed defined.
  Quoted Text Here  
That's the way I make all my pods, at least within a given fuselage size.
  Quoted Text Here  
"a hollow voice says 'poot face'"

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
I went looking through my collection. It's in the MIT Competition handbook page 13. Still available from NARTS. I'm pretty sure it was published in an earlier MIT issue, but this source is still available.