ORIGINAL: dick Hanson
Nice to see that you boys read !
The whole idea of my "uninformed bits of worthless formula" was to see who actually did fly and evaluate the capabilities of extremely low weight -high power models
apparantly you guys are not into that type of thing
The stark reality of the "non flying 3D models tho --is that --- they do fly -
The rules YOU may choose to believe are set in stone - may be OK for you.
However ; when the rule says one thing --and the results say another -- it does not take long to figure out that something is amiss.
I do understand the so called "classical " aerodynamics . And I do use them -all the time
To deny that other types of flight are simple abberations -is simply a flawed response.
They work and if you can not learn from them - it's your loss- not mine.
An odd way to find out who flies a certain type of aircraft: Make untrue statements about physics.
"To deny that other types of flight are simple abberations -is simply a flawed response." I'm trying to be careful here but it looks like you are trying to say that people should acknowledge that other types of flight are abberations. Is that what you meant to write?
No flight is an aberration. If it doesn't behave the way we expect it to, it's because we don't fully understand it. There is no escaping physics. If it flies the way you like, then so be it. It's not violating any laws, it's complying with them all. You don't have to understand them to have fun, but please read on.
Just because you can modify or design a foamy and it flies, or flies better, doesn't mean you know more than an engineer about aerodynamics, which you seem to be implying (Please correct me if I have misread). Anyone can do that, without understanding the physics thereof. I take no exception to anyone experimenting with foamies (or whatever) using trial and error or eschewing math and physics. I do take exception with people making untrue statements, and claiming to disdain physical laws that have been established for decades, and passing that off as "wisdom" for newbies.
If you understood "classical" aerodynamics, it seems unlikely you would have made reference to a weightless airplane possessing a 2:1 thrust to weight ratio.
I don't understand what rules you feel are being violated by lightweight planes. Their behavior can be explained by well understood principles, which is supported by reasonably good aerodynamic computer (mathematical) models in RC simulators available right now, as one example.
You also seem to be drawing unwarranted conclusions about what we are into or not, or what we learn or not, simply because some of us point out that you have made untrue statements about aerodynamics. I fly foamies too. I have also professionally flown (and helped modify with engineers; I'm not an engineer but I've studied it recreationally) very underpowered 900 lb UAVs with 27 foot wingspans, and a 210 lb UAV with an 18' wingspan that was powerered by a 120 CC engine, and many full-scale airplanes.
It would be good if more people could just admit when they have posted erroneous information.