I don't think there is much doubt that barring physical problems, DLG
gets the most "Bang for the Buck". Shoeless Joe, and others, were
right about that from the beginning.
Buzz Averill
On Dec 2, 2007, at 8:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The one thing you can always count on being wrong is any statement
that says progress and innovation in any science or engineering
discipline have reached their natural conclusion or perfection.
That said, because we are working with physics, the most efficient
designs tend to all resemble each other if they solve the same
problems in the same way. I got very fed up over the years with
certain modeling magazines that bragged on their free plans features,
because for years and years, what you got were only cosmetically
different versions of the same .40 sized gas or glow-powered,
front-engined monoplane, with slight variation in proportions and
moments. As if they were all copied off one successful design.
Some of that WAS copying, based off the popular model's measurements
and adding or subtracting a turtledeck, moving the wing from low to
high or mid, adding or subtracting a canopy, changing the shape of the
vertical stab, changing landing gear from tri to taildragger. For an
"exotic" model, once in a while you'd see a canard or tailless design,
maybe a pusher or bipe every other year. But like in fashion, most
planes were just cosmetic variations on the A-Line dress.
And most gliders in those kinds of magazines for 20-odd years were
all variations on a 2-meter trainer with a polyhedral candy-bar wing
or a sloper with a shorter, flat candybar wing and ailerons. Most of
those flew very well, but there wasn't a real leap in performance
until a change in materials arrived with fiberglass and foam, then
with molding, then fibers like kevlar, spectra, carbon. As we start to
stagnate in airfoil development, experimenters turn to finding
advantages from newer materials and assembly techniques, the new
structures sometimes benefit from a change in airfoil choice, in a
see-saw cycle. So development is going to continue, in fits and
starts, as newer technologies filter down from industrial and military
developments and civilian scientific research. Perhaps the next step
is wing planforms with unsightly bumps along the front, like whales
have on their fins. Turns out these have a hydrodynamic purpose in
boundary layer control. Look like hell though:-P
As far as an "average" modeler, and this is only my personal opinion,
not everybody is a master builder or master pilot, or needs to be. For
Every Harley and shoeless Joe, there are many more "average guys", who
are not necessarily into pushing the envelope and filling a wall with
plaques. For them, satisfaction with a plane is a complex equation
with variables like cost, durability, performance versus stability,
ease and cheapness and reliability of repair, appearance,
transportability, ability to use off-the-shelf components, and more. A
plane that represents too much challenge or expense, makes them afraid
to fly it or to fly it aggressively, taking risks. It winds up a
hangar queen while they rack up stress-free hours on a foamy. If they
trade up to better models over time, it is at a significantly slower
rate than the contest crowd.
If the average guy I described is going to build from scratch, his
first effort is not likely going to be a carbon moldie. But it may not
be a stick-built wing either. It is going to be some kind of hybrid,
designed to not require exotic or expensive tooling, toxic adhesives
and components or an immaculate and well-stocked workspace or a ton of
hours that people just don't have any more. Somebody's always going to
be crafting a fine jewel of a plane, never fear for that. But. If
we're talking about getting the masses to try building over ARF's
again, it may require a revolution in design and technique akin to
what the indoor electric flyers experienced when they started
discovering fanfold and EPP foam coupled to lightweight but powerful
outrunners and lipos. That area of the hobby has exploded with design
creativity and participants because the materials are easy to find
locally, are dirt cheap to buy and work with and very forgiving. I
would never be able to afford a glass Viojett or Yellow Aircraft F-18,
much less have a place to fly it, but I built a pusher one out of
fanfold in a few days for twenty bucks worth of materials and I have
enough spare foam left to build five more.
In soaring, to my mind, I think the DLG comes closest to this
concept of ease of build and cheapness to fly plus great performance
for least outlay. But I'm already seeing advanced DLG's that cost as
much as open class ships used to. That discourages entry-level people
from trying it. You can't and shouldn't try to stop progress and
development as people seek a competitive edge. But, you have to keep
funneling people into the wide end of the chute with accessible and
good-performing entry-level and mid-level products that keep them
satisfied, or ANY branch of the hobby will dry up for the next
generation of participants. EasyGliders from multiplex are a great
example of these. Harley, if you can design a wood-based scratch-build
with that theme to it, you'd do the 'average guys' that find the
Genie intimidating a great service.
Mark S.
**************************************
Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?
NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
