Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Totally agree, thanks for sharing. My bench marks are: DLG Photon II Electric Moldie: Mini Graphite Big Laminated Foam: FVK Signal Landmark: FVK Bandit On Dec 1, 2007 10:58 AM, tony estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > - Original Message > ... I presented my opinions as to what is a benchmark, and specifically > stated my qualifications > = > This thread seems to be confused by the difference between the words > "benchmark" and "landmark." Way back at the beginning, the original > reference to a benchmark used the word correctly, viz. as a convenient > standard for measurement or comparison. Various posters thereafter have gone > off in the direction of trying to identify designs that had neat original > ideas and significantly impacted later thought. The word for that is > landmark. > > Libor is a benchmark; Marbury v Madison was a landmark. > > To say a plane floats better or worse or similarly to an Ava is to use an > Ava as a benchmark. The speaker may or may not regard the Ava as a landmark > design, but it's a convenient benchmark because everybody knows how an Ava > flies. What constitutes a landmark is in the eye of the beholder. Roughly > speaking, it's a design like the Fletcher or the JW-DS or the Allegro that > looked unusual at the time but spawned a generation of similar planes. >
Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
- Original Message ... I presented my opinions as to what is a benchmark, and specifically stated my qualifications = This thread seems to be confused by the difference between the words "benchmark" and "landmark." Way back at the beginning, the original reference to a benchmark used the word correctly, viz. as a convenient standard for measurement or comparison. Various posters thereafter have gone off in the direction of trying to identify designs that had neat original ideas and significantly impacted later thought. The word for that is landmark. Libor is a benchmark; Marbury v Madison was a landmark. To say a plane floats better or worse or similarly to an Ava is to use an Ava as a benchmark. The speaker may or may not regard the Ava as a landmark design, but it's a convenient benchmark because everybody knows how an Ava flies. What constitutes a landmark is in the eye of the beholder. Roughly speaking, it's a design like the Fletcher or the JW-DS or the Allegro that looked unusual at the time but spawned a generation of similar planes.
RE: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Hi Mike, First of all, I presented my opinions as to what is a benchmark, and specifically stated my qualifications. They can differ from the thoughts of others, and on this exchange everyone had the ability to express their views. This is a philosophical discussion. Are you just trying to give me a rough time for my opinions?? LOLOLOL However, in regard to what my opinions are, I would love to express why I chose the examples that I did, and group together others. Let's take for example a few items. First, most designers attempt to take the best feature of each plane and try to merge it together into an overall better plane. Is this a "real improvement" per se? Perhaps it is. It is not in my benchmarks. Second, I believe that changing just the airfoil does not necessarily represent a benchmark. Mark Drela has done exceptional work which I admire, as have many other designers like JW, DP, many Europeans, among others. However, does using an airfoil and then modeling a new wing planform constitute a benchmark? My benchmarks were something that produced a significant trend. The planes themselves might not have survived because their features were rapidly incorporated into other models, but they were pioneers. I do not think the Supras or Onyx, or some of the others are just that much different (IMHO). With that said, I look the difference or similarities between the following planes: The Photon and the Ava: Hmmm, the AVA is just a scaled up Photon with a little more wing taper, dihedral, but it is of the same construction. There are others from the Eastern European manufacturers that have similar designs and structural features. The Super Gee I and the Supra: Hmmm, again the Supra is an enlarged Super Gee. It uses the same basic tailgroup, the same and beefier stab mount, light weight construction, specific wing planforms and airfoils. They seem alike, but does size matter when they are used for two separate events? We see designers using features that fit their specific requirements. Obviously, this is quite evident when MacCready built a large Microfilm indoor model because it performed the functions he required. Consider SpaceShip One, the shuttlecock wing feature is not much more than a dethermalizer for freeflight planes used for over 50 years. Thank goodness our modeling experiences go to good uses. But does that take away from the achievements of these great men? No. What I see is that they took what they knew, added their take and came up with a plane that performed the function they required. In our sport, the F3B/F3J planes are taking minor variations and trying to group them together. The variations are not major. The Sharons', Supras, Schpotdorkers, Milleniums, and many other composite ships are designed trying to optimize a specific task. We are eventually going to reach a point of diminishing returns. However, why do new planes come out, if not for their new aerodynamics? They come out routinely, in perhaps 9 month intervals, because of the market. People and pilots always want the latest and greatest, and pay for that. So IMHO, which I believe I can express, I am waiting for that significant improvement to come out. Is the improvement out there? I really hope so. It will become the benchmark. But is the Wright Flyer with wing warping any different than the dynamic wing warping using electrochemical induced composites that are currently being explored? The mechanics are different, but the aerodyamincs is the same. I wonder. Chris > Original Message ---- > Subject: Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs" > From: Mike Lachowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, November 29, 2007 5:41 pm > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Fred Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, RCSE > > Can you tell me what model the Supra is a refinement of? Wright flyer? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Fred, > > > > I agree with your opinion. I read the threads and had to take a larger > > overview to what a benchmark actually means. > > > > In my opinion, Benchmark planes, means some plane to which other planes > > are compared to so that a noticeable advancement in performance, > > building, transport, and flying can be measured. They should be unique > > and contribute unique characteristics. > > > > With that said, the Onyz, or Sharon, or Supra, in fact nearly 99% of the > > planes on the market currently are really just "refinements" to existing > > designs, and really are not improvements. > > > > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and > "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and > unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. > Email
RE: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Dr. Drela and Tom Kiesling are "Supra-men" with the help of Phil Barnes. And TK worked with Barry Kennedy to produce the molded Supra. At least that's what I though. JD From: Jay Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 1:49 PM To: RCSE posting Subject: Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs" Thanks Phil... I thought the Supra was a refinement of one of Drela's earlier planes. which was the agea right? On Nov 30, 2007 2:25 PM, Phil Barnes < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jay Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I thought the supra was a renfinement of the the thermal dancer? > > Oh, Jay :-( I guess we need to forgive you since you haven't been around soaring very much. The Thermal Dancer came well after the Supra and was meant to be a low cost, two piece wing model based on the Supra airfoils and tail group. Sort of a blending of the NSP bagged wing methods with the Supra airfoils and tail arrangement. Phil RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Thanks Phil... I thought the Supra was a refinement of one of Drela's earlier planes. which was the agea right? On Nov 30, 2007 2:25 PM, Phil Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jay Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I thought the supra was a renfinement of the the thermal dancer? > > > > > Oh, Jay :-( > > I guess we need to forgive you since you haven't been around soaring very > much. > > The Thermal Dancer came well after the Supra and was meant to be a low > cost, > two piece wing model based on the Supra airfoils and tail group. Sort of a > blending of the NSP bagged wing methods with the Supra airfoils and tail > arrangement. > > Phil > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" > and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note > that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format > with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and > AOL are generally NOT in text format >
Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
- Original Message - From: "Jay Hunter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I thought the supra was a renfinement of the the thermal dancer? Oh, Jay :-( I guess we need to forgive you since you haven't been around soaring very much. The Thermal Dancer came well after the Supra and was meant to be a low cost, two piece wing model based on the Supra airfoils and tail group. Sort of a blending of the NSP bagged wing methods with the Supra airfoils and tail arrangement. Phil RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
I thought the supra was a renfinement of the the thermal dancer? On Nov 29, 2007 8:41 PM, Mike Lachowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you tell me what model the Supra is a refinement of? Wright flyer? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Fred, > > > > I agree with your opinion. I read the threads and had to take a larger > > overview to what a benchmark actually means. > > > > In my opinion, Benchmark planes, means some plane to which other planes > > are compared to so that a noticeable advancement in performance, > > building, transport, and flying can be measured. They should be unique > > and contribute unique characteristics. > > > > With that said, the Onyz, or Sharon, or Supra, in fact nearly 99% of the > > planes on the market currently are really just "refinements" to existing > > designs, and really are not improvements. > > > > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" > and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note > that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format > with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and > AOL are generally NOT in text format >
Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Can you tell me what model the Supra is a refinement of? Wright flyer? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fred, I agree with your opinion. I read the threads and had to take a larger overview to what a benchmark actually means. In my opinion, Benchmark planes, means some plane to which other planes are compared to so that a noticeable advancement in performance, building, transport, and flying can be measured. They should be unique and contribute unique characteristics. With that said, the Onyz, or Sharon, or Supra, in fact nearly 99% of the planes on the market currently are really just "refinements" to existing designs, and really are not improvements. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
RE: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Ryan, Correct, The Uplink was Dick's plane. Fiberglass wings, T-Tail, Tip launched. The Upstart was a foamie by Dave Robelyn, I believe, manufactured for Ace, I think. Apologies to Dick. If someone want to see a pictire of the UpLink Click here: http://www.spieltek.com/images/DB-Uplink10.jpg Additionally, my list is not exclusive. There are many more planes that one can say contributed as benchmarks. Obviously we can go on. Thanks. Chris > Original Message > Subject: Re: [RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs" > From: "rdwoebke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, November 29, 2007 10:53 am > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > other HLGs, in my opinion, just refinements. > > > > 8) The Upstart: The Upstart was the first DLG used in > competition. Tip > > launching was first pioneered by Dick Barker and Harold Locke, in > > Seattle, and Dick Barker used the launching method to be able to > keep up > > with the overhand throws of Joe Wurts and the rest. When EVERYONE > else > > realized that they could use this method, most effectively by > adding a > > gyro to their current planes, DLG became the only method for > launching. > > Gyros are now gone by good DLG design and airfoiled tailgroups, but > > overall the UpStart was the benchmark. It did not last long. > Hey Chris, > > I think you meant "Uplink", not upstart... RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] Supra or Onyx JW, these are "Me-Too Designs"
Fred, I agree with your opinion. I read the threads and had to take a larger overview to what a benchmark actually means. In my opinion, Benchmark planes, means some plane to which other planes are compared to so that a noticeable advancement in performance, building, transport, and flying can be measured. They should be unique and contribute unique characteristics. With that said, the Onyz, or Sharon, or Supra, in fact nearly 99% of the planes on the market currently are really just "refinements" to existing designs, and really are not improvements. The problem with "benchmarks" is that they generally last a very short time, perhaps only one contest, or one weekend of flying. Why? Because if any improvement is so radical that it makes the plane fly 3-6% better, it will be incorporated into the next generation model, or an existing model, and it's distinctiveness rapidly lost. So, in my opinion, the following might be considered benchmarks: 1) The Nelson KA6. You know this plane. It is perhaps the first fully fiberglass and molded, aerobatic, 12 ft R/C sailplane of the 1970's. 2) The Graupner Cirrus. Again in the 1970's, it was the first fully plastic molded fuselage. It has ailerons, flying stab, was very light for it's time. 3) The EPP Zagi wing: I look at this as the first time we could fly combat with a wing and not have to spend so much time in the shop fixing planes. Besides the durability (a benchmark), EPP would permit a lot of PSS planes to be made, and got a lot of simulator pilots and computer geeks out to the slope. 4) The Aquila: When Skip Miller added a semisymmetrical airfoil to the plane, we saw the advent of new types of airfoils being used that provided greater range. 5) The Mirage: Designed by Blaine Rawdon, this was one of the early designs that spurred lightweight floater sailplanes. It also started the "thick" vs "Thin" debate, started winch development to the strong ones we have today. It spurred first the thick flat bottomed sections, but later as CF was put in the spars, lead to the planes that we currently fly today. An Ava or Bubble Dancer, etc, is nothing more than a tricked up Mirage. 6) SWK MK I: You probably don't know this model, but it was designed by Jerry Krainock and flown by him to several cross country distance records prior to Joe Wurts' current records. I had a thick airfoil, was foam cored, and was very fast. 7) The Sunbird: Dave Thornburg designed this early HLG, but this HLG was not the first, nor the best HLG, out there for its time. It did have a big influence in getting HLG going, as did the Mirage and others. Most other HLGs, in my opinion, just refinements. 8) The Upstart: The Upstart was the first DLG used in competition. Tip launching was first pioneered by Dick Barker and Harold Locke, in Seattle, and Dick Barker used the launching method to be able to keep up with the overhand throws of Joe Wurts and the rest. When EVERYONE else realized that they could use this method, most effectively by adding a gyro to their current planes, DLG became the only method for launching. Gyros are now gone by good DLG design and airfoiled tailgroups, but overall the UpStart was the benchmark. It did not last long. 9) The Todi: Bob Dodgsen brought out this first flaperon ship, which used mechanical mixers for the flaperons. The Ace MicroPro TX as well as early JR radio designs permitted planes to be built with electronic rather than mechanical mixers. The Todi represented the first time a TD plane could use airfoil camber for tasks. So, EVERY TD ship that uses any sort of aileron and flap changing owes it's existence to the Todi. They are refinements. 10) The Challenger: Designed by Otto Heitdecker, this large flapperon plane was a precursor to the subsequent larger Maestro designs of Dodgsen. Otto was a dominating pilot of the SOAR nats years. He can be compared to all of us that fly molded flapped ship today. 11) Sitars/Dohle: German designs, they were early precursors to F3B ships, molded, new HQ airfoils, flapped. Basically it showed that multiple models from the same molds can be made for competition and all fly the same. 12) Hobie Hawk: Designed by Hobie Alder, the plane represented one of the first mass produced composite laminated planes. It spurred vacuum bagging techniques, as well as foam cutting and fiberglass skins, then CF use. It was not a great contest winner, but the building techniques it used lead to what we currently are refining today. 13) Rolf Decker Designs: I cannot quote which planes were built by Rolf Decker, but Rolf had some of the first really great F3B molded planes. For example, he had a F3B plane that had telescoping wings. For speed it pulled the wings in and for thermaling, they were expanded. The building techniques, airfoils, and plane moments in current F3B designs have origins here. 14) Thermic 50: This is a Gol
