Re: [RCSE] Was SchpotDorker is unique!!!
In a message dated 5/8/00 2:45:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are correct, just should have kept my mouth shut. I don't do business with Fred Sage anymore. I like to have a manufacturer that will not take a planform that is provided to him and sell it to customers direct. I don't think that is too much to ask. My apologies go to anyone I have offended. How about knocking off this childish crap Sal, then you won't have to apologize. You always have to put someone down in an attempt to justify your business ethics. IMHO Bill Grenoble RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] The SchpotDorker is unique!!!
Fred, I did not say you copied the laser planform for the Addiction. I do know that you have made copies of the wings that we make for other pilots. FRED SAGE wrote: I haven't weighed in on the thread concerning the Schpot Dorker being a clone of the Addiction because I thought the allegations didn't warrant the dignity of an answer. I know Daryl Perkins is a premier pilot and glider designer and certainly doesn't need to copy an existing design to make a marketable glider. The truth of the matter is that both the Schpot Dorker and the Addiction are fine examples of light weight unlimited designs that are optimized for typical AMA thermal duration tasks. Either glider is capable of winning with the right pilot at the controls. However, a pilot that wins with either glider is probably equally capable of winning with any number of alternate gliders. After reading Sal Defrancesco's recent post, I find that I can no longer remain quiet. Sal states that I copied the Laser 3MC plan form as the basis for the quad taper Addiction. This is simply not true. First of all, I offer the Addiction in any number of configurations including double, triple and quad taper variants. In addition, I allow a pilot to select the span of the glider he wants from a minimum of 112" to a maximum of 125". In other words, the wings are custom designed to customer specification depending on the proposed use and skill level of the pilot involved. Furthermore, I offer the wing in multiple airfoils including the 7037, 7035, 7036, 7035,6,7 blend, RG15, SD7080, RG15, etc. When I take an order with the span and airfoil stipulated, I simply run the numbers through John Hazel's fine plan form optimization program to achieve an efficient wing. I'm able to do this because I've been accumulating templates for about 10 years and am not constrained by the restrictions of production work. The real truth of this "who copied who" scenario is that as gliders become more optimized around a particular design parameter (light weight three meter thermal duration optimized), they become very similar. Given an airfoil, wing loading and aspect ratio, panel breaks and taper ratio's are going to be almost identical. Does this mean that one glider is a clone of the other? Certainly not. As a final statement, whenever inflammatory opinions or derogatory remarks are made on the RCSE such as Eric Farmer's post of three days ago or the post that prompted this response, the logical consideration should be to determine the motivation and credibility of the drafter. With a little common sense and reading between the lines, the truth becomes apparent. Fred -- Sal DeFrancesco Northeast Sailplane Products 140 Kirby Lane Williston, VT. 05495 802-658-9482 Website: http://www.nesail.com RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] The SchpotDorker is unique!!!
Funny, I didn't know that there were any copyrights on airfoils, dimmensions or tapers. Sal DeFrancesco wrote: Fred, I did not say you copied the laser planform for the Addiction. I do know that you have made copies of the wings that we make for other pilots. FRED SAGE wrote: I haven't weighed in on the thread concerning the Schpot Dorker being a clone of the Addiction because I thought the allegations didn't warrant the dignity of an answer. I know Daryl Perkins is a premier pilot and glider designer and certainly doesn't need to copy an existing design to make a marketable glider. The truth of the matter is that both the Schpot Dorker and the Addiction are fine examples of light weight unlimited designs that are optimized for typical AMA thermal duration tasks. Either glider is capable of winning with the right pilot at the controls. However, a pilot that wins with either glider is probably equally capable of winning with any number of alternate gliders. After reading Sal Defrancesco's recent post, I find that I can no longer remain quiet. Sal states that I copied the Laser 3MC plan form as the basis for the quad taper Addiction. This is simply not true. First of all, I offer the Addiction in any number of configurations including double, triple and quad taper variants. In addition, I allow a pilot to select the span of the glider he wants from a minimum of 112" to a maximum of 125". In other words, the wings are custom designed to customer specification depending on the proposed use and skill level of the pilot involved. Furthermore, I offer the wing in multiple airfoils including the 7037, 7035, 7036, 7035,6,7 blend, RG15, SD7080, RG15, etc. When I take an order with the span and airfoil stipulated, I simply run the numbers through John Hazel's fine plan form optimization program to achieve an efficient wing. I'm able to do this because I've been accumulating templates for about 10 years and am not constrained by the restrictions of production work. The real truth of this "who copied who" scenario is that as gliders become more optimized around a particular design parameter (light weight three meter thermal duration optimized), they become very similar. Given an airfoil, wing loading and aspect ratio, panel breaks and taper ratio's are going to be almost identical. Does this mean that one glider is a clone of the other? Certainly not. As a final statement, whenever inflammatory opinions or derogatory remarks are made on the RCSE such as Eric Farmer's post of three days ago or the post that prompted this response, the logical consideration should be to determine the motivation and credibility of the drafter. With a little common sense and reading between the lines, the truth becomes apparent. Fred -- Sal DeFrancesco Northeast Sailplane Products 140 Kirby Lane Williston, VT. 05495 802-658-9482 Website: http://www.nesail.com RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] Was SchpotDorker is unique!!!
Sal, do you think you can jump high enough to get both feet in your mouth? I don't think I ever saw an apology with a right hook attached! Just my 2 Cents, Rich RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RCSE] The SchpotDorker is unique!!!
Sal; I don't want to argue semantics with you on such a public forum. If you want any further responses from me on this subject, you'll talk with me personally, either via e-mail or by phone. However, to refute your post of earlier this evening, what you actually said was "The Laser 3MC was the first quad tapered wing designed and now copied by Fred Sage." Since I've never copied any of your products, I still take exception to that statement. What I do when taking an order from a potential customer is to spend several minutes talking about his background, experience level, geographic location and objectives for his new glider. Depending on his answers, I'll make recommendations involving airfoil, plan form and wingspan. The customer then picks and chooses from the various design compromises involved with those decisions. In this manner, I can deliver a custom glider that will give maximum satisfaction to the individual customer. There's no copying in this process unless you consider NSP the sole proprietor of the quad taper wing. Please Sal, may I have permission to develop a quintuple taper wing? No matter how many tapers are involved, I do use John Hazel's excellent plan form optimization program to ensure that I build an efficient wing. If my wings turn out to be similar to yours, that just indicates we're both proceeding toward the same goal. In case you're interested, of the 67 e-mail responses I've received either over the RCSE or personally concerning this thread, only one differed from the majority opinion. Although I'm too much of a gentleman to point out the obvious, I'm sure you realize which side of the disagreement people are supporting. The overwhelming preponderance of the numbers tell us to give up this futile discussion and turn the band width over for more productive use. Perhaps we should listen. Fred RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
