Spada 3M

[Konrad]

Totally agree OR.

I'm thinking that if I make a plane that is as good as I can, then it will be down to the pilot to do well wth it.

The better designed the model is, the better it flies, and the most important thing is that its much easier to fly well. I think my models are easy to distinguish from not so well designed planes.

As a designer I stand by my models and I'm more than happy to discuss any aspect of them with anyone, but especially the people who support me by buying them. They have a right to know what they are spending their hard-earned money on.

Cheers,

Doc.

That is why I had no problem hacking away at the tail angle or flipping the flippers. It was my way of dealing with a problems as I saw them with the tools available to me. In my threads on the Redshifts I share what I found was needed to get some of the potintial out of the airframe. You have been great with the support.

 

[Doc J]

Really where have I shit on anybody. When folks have issue I try my best to help them out on this form.

Now when it come to the discussion of ideas they are open to debate and detailed examination. I freely attack, break down ideas looking for the core truth or merits. This is based on the scientific method that any idea or claim needs to be able to be duplicate or confirmed. If I don't understand something I'll dig and dig to try to get a better understanding. This means that I put a lot hight value on objective data than subjective or sales data. Far too many folks don't understand that it is the idea I'm interested in. I really can't waste my time trying to placate a person that makes an asinine statement. So I might come off a bit harsh. But that is not my aim.

Now you as a purveyor and designer of a product I hold to a higher standard that the public at large. (the fact that you hold a PHD in the STEM feilds helps) You and I have had our fights but at the end of the day I think we both have respect for each others position and goals. I know I do.

All good Konrad - as you know its not what you say, its the way you say it - you are still adept at rubbing people up the wrong way, but actually I think I have detected a certain mellowing in recent months.

Cheers,

Doc.

 

[Doc J]

That is why I had no problem hacking away at the tail angle or flipping the flippers. It was my way of dealing with a problems as I saw it with the tools available to me. In my thread on the Redshift I share what I found was needed to get some of the potintial out of the airframe. You have been great with the support.

Long live the hacksaw!

Doc.

 

[Konrad]

All good Konrad - as you know its not what you say, its the way you say it - you are still adept at rubbing people up the wrong way, but actually I think I have detected a certain mellowing in recent months.

Cheers,

Doc.

Heaven forbid!
I'll never prostrate myself to flatter or placate anybody. I'm not rubbing anybody, I’m just looking for the important data!

 

[Konrad]

Long live the hacksaw!

Doc.

And the epoxy pot!

 

[Doc J]

This is more like what I would use for reference in wing fllet design. That's when I'm not using the tried and tested "what-we-did-last-time-plus-a bit-of-intuition" formula.

https://peter.gasparovic.website.tuke.sk/students/wingfillets.pdf

Some of it even applies to sailplanes.

What this paper essentially illustrates is that the variables of fuseage and wing design mean that every case is design-specific, and really no hard and fast "covers all" rules apply. In physical testing I have found that this really is the case.

Its like the old wind tunnel runners used to say: "The corrrect fillet radius is the same as the tunnel Chief's thumb."

Years ago the test models sometimes did not have fillets, so the tunnel guys used to apply clay, using thier thumbs until the fillet becagn to lose interference drag. Still a very good idea!

Cheers, Doc.

PS: sorry I could not upload the actual file as its to big.