(Jay) wrote:

"Richard Isakson" wrote in message Bull****, Jay.

You seem to have strange theory that just because something isn't done it
must be a good thing to try.

No, the theory is just because someone else hasn't been able to do it
right, doesn't mean it won't ever work. Give yourself some credit.
Its happened before.

Subsonic aerodynamics was well explored by
World War II.

Ya, and we know what kind of advanced tools they had at their disposal
during that time. I think their computer was a group of ladies in a
room with adding machines.

Much of transonic and supersonic flow was understood shortly
after. If you think that you've come up with something new that just means
you don't understand why thinks work.

When the Wright brothers came up with this idea of heavier than air
powered flight didn't mean they just didn't understand how things
worked. If they'd listened to the early 1900's version of people with
that attitude, we'd be celebrating some French guy inventing powered
flight. They had intuition that they may be something there, and
didn't give up just because lots of other people had failed.

It's funny, but I think you are both right. One beauty of experimental
aviation is the "experimental" part and the ability to break the mold.
But I'd also bet that 99 44/100% (conservative estimate) of the time
that well-established practice is forsaken, the builder finds out why
that practice was well established in the first place. And an
uninformed outsider's opinion of the engineering dome by professionals
on a project like an airliner is laughable at best. Somehow, I suspect
that Boeing knew quite a bit about composites 30 years ago, and I am
glad that the planes I fly on now that were designed at that time do
not have hot-wire cut foam wings g. Richard: I think it is good for
someone like Jay to come along and use his creativity to challenge
conventional thought. Jay: Remember that if you want to analogize what
you are doing here to the Wright Bros, they did a hell of a lot of
engineering and experimentation, not just out-of-the-box thinking.

Your current design has at least three fatal flaws.
You need to open some books and understand the theory of flight before you
start designing airplanes.

Instead of running numbers on Excel with formulas filled with fudge
factors from experimental data taken 70 years ago, I think I'm going
to throw some wings on my FEA computer model and let the computer take
care of the algebra at 2.4GHz.
Now THAT is scary. Someone who thinks a computer model is a substitute
for learning fundamentals (and is impressed by the speed if his PC's
processorVBG) is a huge danger to himself. If you do get into the
build mode, I hope you will try out your ideas on an RC model first.

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.