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 <soaring@airage.com> > > 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 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
