Dave, while I understand your point, I do have a few questions about your thoughts.


I agree on most of what you say, however, while increasing the % thickness will result in a "body" more conducive of lift at certain angle of attacks, surely aspect ratio must in fact have a HUGE effect on it, it can't all be side area. My point of view is that having a deeper fuselage for a given length should increase aspect ratio, albeit slightly, and should, (at least in my alcohol fuelled brain, it's 8:00 pm over here) be more efficient. I think this is where Nat Penton's voodoo express was heading, side area in higher aspect ratios, to gain the required efficiency for snazzy KE.

This has degenerated into a discussion about aircraft design, or is it an evolution of the discussion? Either way, I look forward to all your views.




Oh, and just so you know, I'm seriously considering cutting balsa on a smaller, lighter aircraft, with the deep/skinny styling of a mid-rex. I suppose before I do, I need to do some more research into "designed in" drag. I know that some years ago John Roncz was messing with airfoils that would provide low drag at low speed and insane amounts at high speed, (these airfoils were used on the full sized staudacher for all you IMAC loonies). I think if an aircraft can be wholistically designed with this premise, a more constant speed form of aircraft would ensue, with the added advantage of being able to be powered by a more feeble powerplant. At this point I see the design of F3A aircraft as flying drag machines, requiring gobs of power to overcome the inherent drag in the aircraft.

Am I trying to redesign the wheel? Am I a Pattern Heretic? Probably. Then again, when you have heroes like Burt Rutan, and Hanno Prettner (remember the calypso?) it's sorta par for the course.