Dave, I hate to admit it but I was around during the time of the Mirage. The single sided elevator and asymmetric vertical stabilizer planform really bothered me at the time. A real airplane needs to be symmetrical. So, I never was drawn to the design. The Blom and Voss designs from WWII really question this, but I still am a purist. In addition "floaters" only have a few days per year here in Texas where they really have an advantage and at the time the Mirage was a "floater".
The comment about Hi Johnson really hits home. His designs were more close to what I thought we needed here in the central US. My gray matter now fails me, but as I recall you have it right his designs were high AR, loading and camber. Even though I looked at them as a option, nobody I knew of built or flew one in our area before I took a hiatus from the hobby. About the same time Don Chancey was developing his Pantera design. This airplane used the "new" Eppler airfoils and the really new, for us here in the desolation of Texas, balsa over foam "D" tube construction. When I designed and built my own sailplane during that era that is the direction I went. By the way I am still flying that airplane, and it was at the last TNT and I am still very satisfied how the airplane performs if the pilot moves the sticks the right direction. No slam on the "anti-composite" crowd, but I think that construction technique was a milestone. Mark W. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:02 AM Subject: [RCSE] Re: Mirage Correction > Well, memory serves but only partly. With input from a couple of guys who > also witnessed this event at SULA (thank you all for the corrections and > the > memories), the Mirage with carbon spar caps was NOT Don Edberg's. > Apologies to > Don (who has written and flown great stuff over the years). I'll leave > the > corrected name out for reasons of liability! > > However, it was a pretty spectacular event! > > That said, the Mirage is one of the neater ideas that came along in that > era. Blaine did a great job with the basic concept and added a number of > innovative ideas to enhance the overall design. > > At the time (my opinion only) there were three developing approaches to > thermal soaring. > > One of them was traditional - the Paragon, Oly IIs, Windrifter, etc > ultimately leading up to the Sailaire. Big floaters with lots of area and > high lift > (Clark-Y ish) airfoils. > > The other was the concept Blaine was developing - light wing loading, not > very high aspect ratio, and a lower camber section that could float and > cruise > nicely. > > The third was Hi Johnson's - very high aspect ratio and wing loading with > high camber airfoils to carry the loads. > > All worked in their own way. > > Interesting to observe that all of these were displaced by composite > ships a > few years later. Technology does make a difference and can alter the > landscape very quickly. > > Nice to see some of these designs coming back. They were neat ships that > worked well. > > Apologies again to Don. > > But if you've gotta crash, please do it in a spectacular manner. I do my > best sometimes but, other than looping my Albatross around the left wing > on the > power lines at Pasadena a long time back, nothing particularly memorable > of > late. Jeff N's 'extreme verticality' landing at the NATS a few years ago > was > certainly notable. > > Merry Christmas to all. > > - Dave R > > 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. > 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.
