An airofoil?!! he he edible strikes again.

My amazing, fantastic, brilliant but very very dead gizmo II had a kinda under cambered section which looked really cool (!) but i'm not sure it did the glide performance any favours. Difficult to tell really as i never produced one with a normal section.

At the end of the day i think wing span and chord (and hence area) are the most importat aspects of the wing on a fun-fly. From personal experience the section is only really important for the glide but if i knew the optimum section then i'd be using it! Apparently the Cougar 2000 has quite a good glide, and since you have one you may want to experiment with that. Dunno just mess around like me and your bound to design a good'n eventually!

Not so sure on hroachen's method though. Surely those sections would only be good for trainers?

All i will say though is don't be tempted to have a really stupidly thick section as they just don't work! terrible glide performance. Dan Workman's designs have had quite thin sections (for a fun-fly anyway) so don't think that fun-fly = comedy wing = amazing manoeuvrability!

But hey, prehaps Reebok's the way to go!