ORIGINAL: F4u5
ORIGINAL: vertical grimmace
I am of the opinion that it is never a good idea to point out how fast something was built. I do not personally find that impressive. The fact that the aircraft had problems and then was lost to a crash illustrates this point.
I would have rather heard that it took 3 months and then that the airplane flew for years after that. I would not consider this effort a success on any level.
Guys, this is not about you. Give the guy a break. Always a critic....replies like this irk me. It's always easier to sit back and analyze the results than create them yourself.
Kudos to the builder...I do find it impressive and do not see how you can correlate the 2 (build vs. crash), lest I be considered an idiot too for losing my Polikarpov I-16 on the second flight (took me 9 months to build).
I don't see the point of this thread being about the build time, it was merely a point of interjection.
Jeff
The fact that they go out of the way to mention how quickly this aircraft was built, in the title of the video and the interview, shows he is proud of that fact. That would be fine if the project was a success, but it was not.
The speed at which this aircraft was built is directly responsible for the result of the maiden flight, which is the point of this thread.