Is there a place in the world for pretty sailplanes anymore?

[BMatthews]

I'm sorry but as much as I pride myself on being a believer in the concept of "form follows function" I just cannot bring myself to look upon the current crop of "broomsticks with wings" and consider then attractive. It just seems like we crossed a point some time back where all sense of trying to capture at least a hint of the full sized sailplanes was tossed out and it became OK to use a simple stick to house the gear and join the wings to the tail.

Oh sure, there's a few folks like Harly Michealis that are bucking this trend but it just seems like the gliders today lack any real soul. And yes, I know that having soul won't max your flight score or ensure you can lawn dart your way to a perfect landing.

But many folks do not fly in contests. So why do they/you feel you need to fly models that have the sex appeal of a toaster?

You Bird of Time faithful know what I'm talking about here. And there used to be a lot of such designs that leaned heavily towards pure performance but kept a flair of the stylish in their outlines and fuselage designs.

If there really that big a penalty to adding perhaps 50% to 80% more fuselage cross section compared to the minimal solution so the model sort of looks like it's full scale brethren?

For me the soul of a model resides in it's fuselage. The wings are like someone's arms and the tail surfaces like feet. It's the fuselage that is the body and the all important nose and canopy or cockpit that is the face and eyes of the model. Without these acoutrements the model takes on the aspect of something mundane. Put wings on a frying pan and you have the same personality. But flesh out the fuselage, give it shape and presence with voluptuous curves and slinky lines and suddenly you have aerial sculpture that greatly adds beauty and grace to the environment. And, dare I suggest, a knowing smile to the face of the builder and pilot as it flies so serenely through its native element?

Not being one to toss stones in glass houses unless I'm willing to suffer a cut or two I offer my own recent doodle for your browsing pleasure and edification.....

What? Me? Waxing poetic? Perhaps. Maybe it was the two glasses of wine with dinner tonight.... :D

[little flyer]

funny you said broom sticks...

[BMatthews]

...cringe shudder.....

[Wildewinds]

Dunno what you think, but this is damn pretty to me:
http://www.kennedycomposites.com/images/supra/supra10lg.jpg
http://www.kennedycomposites.com/images/supra/supra11lg.jpg

I find the newer molded models to be much prettier than the older woodies. The old models just look clunky to me.

[erich]

How can one tell if one plane is more or less beautiful then others, when all these new molded planes look exactly alike. IMO what BMathews is referring to, in addition to beauty, is CHARACTER. The new breed of moldies may have a certain amount of repetative beauty but no character, whatsoever.

Here's my version of beauty and character.

erich

[WimH]

Dunno what you think, but this is damn pretty to me:
Not to me....
this is, I hope to be building one some day (electric version):
http://www.skybench.com/images/vphoto/raywin.jpg
http://www.skybench.com/images/vphoto/raywin.jpg
edit: somehow pic did not show up anymore...

[Jurgen]

I like the "in between old and new" like the Dragonfly-pro

[Ollie]

How about a SKY BIRD kit?
How about a BABY BOWLUS kit?
http://www.skybench.com/
Or Bowlus BS-100 Super Albatross?
http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/bowlus.htm
Or MINIMOA plans?
http://www.rcmmagazine.com/e/env/0001uQFazaSlX3o5z89R9q7/store/store-plans-list-5.html?link=/store/store-plans-catalog-tem.html&item=plans:pl-804
Or Minimoa Kits?
http://www.hobbyclub.com/minimoa_by_graupner.htm

The AMA/ LSF R/C Soaring Nationals dropped the scale event a few years ago because there were few entrys.

The BOT ARF is cheep, cheep, cheep or not?

Why are these things popular or not?!?!

[erich]

Jurgen

That plane looks real nice. Especially the tail. Where did you get it? Kit or what?

erich

[WimH]

Jurgen

That plane looks real nice. Especially the tail. Where did you get it? Kit or what?

erichit's an arf. You can get it from NSP in th US:

http://www.nesail.com/detail.php?productID=3215

[erich]

Thanks WimH. This will sound and probably is: silly, but if I can't build it (at least most of it), I don't wanna fly it. Would of had an AVA by now if there was a kit or short kit for it. Just a personal stupidity on my part and no reflection on anyone else's tastes. Still that Dragonfly is a real good looking plane.

erich

[WimH]

This will sound and probably is: silly...
erich
it does/is , by all means. But I often follow the same reasoning.... I wish I had more time/room to build. Well, at the moment the main thing holding me back is myself really...

Oh, you can get the Dragonfly from SoaringUsa as well ...

[Vasoarin]

Say Wildewind, what is the name and manufacturer of the one you are holding up. I do get a sense of satisfaction from building the whole enchilada.

[BMatthews]

ARF or self build. Hobby or sport? We used to have a Builder of the Model rule but this got dropped a lot of years ago based on the idea of flying being a sport and building being a hobby.... and the fact that it was a hard rule to prove and enforce in many cases.

Broom handles or beauty (character). I have to admit that it's still fighting a battle within my own mind. Part of me looks at something like that Dragonfly-Pro and says "sweet" while at the same time the other part says " now if those wing and tail only had a smoothly fatter fuselage to look like a Discus on a Diet that would be fantastic".

Ollie, I've seen a lot of those scale models but in this case I was thinking more along the lines of semi scale or "suggested scale" if I may coin a new term. Just fat enough to bring to mind the idea that a two legged pilot COULD climb out of it after a flight rather than deal with the often humoungous fat scale fuselages.

For example that sketch of mine in the first thread is supposed to show a Wolf inspired wing with a span of 120 inches. The fuselage is 5.5 inches deep and 3 wide. So it's pretty much twice or a bit more the cross section of the thinner "broom handle" designs.

I'm just not sure how to calculate the real world price that would be paid for this large a fuselage.

[Cebola]

Clean lines a good balsa fuselage, using design's from the good american gliders from 1970 decade are to soluction for pretty models.

Cebola
Brazil

[OVSS Boss]

Ollie,
Catch up, LSF has Scale soaring again, since 2004, in the form of closed course racing and aerotow launching, we like pretty sailplanes too!

www.silentflight.org

Marc
2006 Soaring Nats Event Director

[OVSS Boss]

Bruce,
I agree, a Mantis is sure got the load of ugly contest won but a Supra on the otherhand is pretty elegant, but why would you want a fuse that has the cross section of a B-52 in comparison? Your ship planform is pretty, but ask Thornburg about X-section and he would beat you over the head with it on that ship. You could carry a dirty bomb inside that thing. All I can say is build it and see if it works, if it makes you happy, thaen all questions are answered.

Marc

[WimH]

... pretty models.

Cebola
BrazilMy ulitmate dream is a glider looking like a frigate bird. You've taken steps in the right direction already...

[JustPlaneChris]

It just seems like we crossed a point some time back where all sense of trying to capture at least a hint of the full sized sailplanes was tossed out and it became OK to use a simple stick to house the gear and join the wings to the tail.

I had a hard time convincing my wife that I did not write your message using a different login name. :D

I totally agree! That (and the silly desire to build things myself) is why I am currently building a Genie.

Yes, I may give up a tiny bit of performance by having a plane with character and curves. But egads, consider the alternative: Flying something that looks like a feminine hygene product with a wing and tail stuck on it. ;)

-Chris

[Tim Wolff]

Flying something that looks like a feminine hygene product with a wing and tail stuck on it. ;)

-Chris

Hygene? I think they look more like a "marital aid".

There is a place. Every spring in Muncie at the Woodcrafter's Meet.

http://www.skybench.com/

[Jurgen]

Jurgen

That plane looks real nice. Especially the tail. Where did you get it? Kit or what?

erichThanks WimH for answering.
Erich, i was very close to buying one but holding back on wing strenght for powerfull winching + zooming. For a future elektro project the Dragonfly still tickles my feet :)
First there was "Dragonfly", then "Dragonfly Pro", now (very recently) "Strong Dragonfly"
Jurgen.

PS: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=429701&page=2&pp=15

[Miami Mike]

I just cannot bring myself to look upon the current crop of "broomsticks with wings" and consider then attractive. It just seems like we crossed a point some time back where all sense of trying to capture at least a hint of the full sized sailplanes was tossed out...Since I first got into this hobby, I never understood the idea that the planes we fly ought to look like miniature versions of so-called "real" planes. Our planes are just as real as those full-size planes that carry people around, but they're optimized for their smaller size and for radio control. Why would anyone want to compromise the performance of an RC plane by imitating a larger craft that carries people? Why have an imitation cockpit with a silly little doll inside? Those larger craft aren't built to imitate the birds that inspired them, so why should our planes be build to imitate those larger craft? Our planes have an existence and appeal of their own that doesn't have to be related in any way to full scale aircraft or to anything else.

Also, why do we call them "models" when many of them aren't models of anything? This popular misuse of "model' has forced us to say "scale" when what we really mean is "model". Why don't we use "model" to mean a true imitation of some full-scale aircraft, throw out the inaccurate use of the word "scale", and call our optimized radio-controlled planes by some term that describes what they actually are?

[BMatthews]

Jurgen, that Strong version is far nicer looking than the Pro. It's not much larger but it's amazing how much even that little bit helps. Or perhaps it was just the camera angle.

Mike, you're right. We don't build models unless we are involved in scale modeling. Instead we are building remotley piloted aircraft that are as individual and specific as any other aircraft.

.... but there's no reason they have to look UGLY! :D

Sorry, just yankin' your chain. Some of the flying suppositories do actually manage to achieve some degree of visual attraction but I've noticed that they don't tend to be the minimalist types. OK, perhaps I put enough room in my doodle's fuselage to carry my lunch as well as the radio gear. It can probably be made quite a bit thinner without hurting the aesthetics highly but still needs to stay larger than some of the options out there.

It's not just me either. Look at the Houston Hawk models. They are quite thin but through some simple shape manipulation then still tend to look at least a little bit bird like in the fuselage.

... Marital aids? LOL *snort* LOL :D

I'm a little surprised that no one has commented on the choice of the gull wing with the outer panels slightly drooped.

[Wildewinds]

Say Wildewind, what is the name and manufacturer of the one you are holding up. I do get a sense of satisfaction from building the whole enchilada.

That's the Supra. www.airplane-model.com

[jrgospod]

throw out the inaccurate use of the word "scale", and call our optimized radio-controlled planes by some term that describes what they actually are?

Like toy :) :D ?

John

[jrgospod]

I'm a little surprised that no one has commented on the choice of the gull wing with the outer panels slightly drooped.

That drew my attention, but I’m not the familiar with all the designs. I think it really looks sharp and would like to know how it would soar. Is the design just for looks or does it have a advantage /function?

John

P.S Nose reminds me of Harley’s Genie.

[Miami Mike]

Like toy :) :D ?

JohnYes, like "toy". After all, whether we like the sound of it or not, it's a compelling term that comes in handy when we're trying to secure a new flying site. ("They're just harmless toy airplanes.") :p

[jrgospod]

Yes, like "toy". After all, whether we like the sound of it or not, it's a compelling term that comes in handy when we're trying to secure a new flying site. ("They're just harmless toy airplanes.") :p

Unfortunately, mine are not always so harmless. Glad to see you have a sense of humor. Sorry for pulling you chain, but I couldn’t resist :D . Some on RCSE and other threads get so uptight/serious :mad: about a hobby that they forget that the original reason for it was to have fun. I love the beautiful wood planes but fly pod&B DLG also. It all depends on what makes you smile :) . Enjoy what you fly ;) !

John

[Mark Miller]

Here are a few from the Isthmus Models stable. Some are available now and some are in the works.

Mark Miller

[TLyttle]

Oh, I LOVE this thread, particularly the ongoing giggles!

Hobby? Sport? Scale? Model? Who GIVE a spit??? Are you having FUN?

My tastes go back even further, to the era of the 50s freeflight sailplanes, particularly the UK stuff found in Aeromodeller and others. I haven't taken the time to find any names for these, something like "Seagull" etc., with polyhedral, gull, wings, and the beautiful swept fuses with the stab at the top. That gave more efficiency to the rudder, and all that scientific stuff, but they were just GORGEOUS. I have one on the board, just ain't got to it yet; can you say, "too many projects"?

[BMatthews]

...Hobby? Sport? Scale? Model? Who GIVE a spit??? Are you having FUN?....

Well... YEAH! It's all fun but you're taking the fun out of me baiting the broom handle camp!... :D

I'm the first to admit that when it comes down to a "last man standing" world champs then all this nonsense about character and aesthetics has to take a backseat. But for 95% of the folks out there I can't help but think that the 1 or 2% they would loose by having a model that looks like something other than a suppository would be easily gained back in how the model satifies them when it's in the air and they are just flying for fun.

As for my gull wings a large part of it is character again. But there's a part of me that suggests that it would lead to increased efficiency. You see, it's well known that the air on the wing of the more or less "normal" flat winged designs flows spanwise with the lower surface flowing to the tips and the upper surface flowing to the center. And dihedral helps to promote a stronger version of this. But what if we anhedral the outer panels a little? Would it help to reduce the spanwise flow and thus take some of the energy out of the tip vortices and give it back to the model to use for flying? When I see the number of birds that use gull wings of some form and that rely on flying efficiency I can't help but wonder.

Mind you I have not a shred of wind tunnel info to support this rather shakey hypothesis other than Mother Nature's windtunnel test models. Anyone know of any?

[trident58]

Bruce, you just gave me a superb idea. I'm a high school physics teacher, and my kids built a wind tunnel last year. I'll have my students test out your hypothesis. Might give them an idea about what a hypothesis really is.
I totally agree with you about character. Take a look at my Durex V build thread. Aesthetic value was the only reason I decided to build that plane. However, I do find a lot of the "broomstick" planes very cool looking!
Jon

Well... YEAH! It's all fun but you're taking the fun out of me baiting the broom handle camp!... :D

I'm the first to admit that when it comes down to a "last man standing" world champs then all this nonsense about character and aesthetics has to take a backseat. But for 95% of the folks out there I can't help but think that the 1 or 2% they would loose by having a model that looks like something other than a suppository would be easily gained back in how the model satifies them when it's in the air and they are just flying for fun.

As for my gull wings a large part of it is character again. But there's a part of me that suggests that it would lead to increased efficiency. You see, it's well known that the air on the wing of the more or less "normal" flat winged designs flows spanwise with the lower surface flowing to the tips and the upper surface flowing to the center. And dihedral helps to promote a stronger version of this. But what if we anhedral the outer panels a little? Would it help to reduce the spanwise flow and thus take some of the energy out of the tip vortices and give it back to the model to use for flying? When I see the number of birds that use gull wings of some form and that rely on flying efficiency I can't help but wonder.

Mind you I have not a shred of wind tunnel info to support this rather shakey hypothesis other than Mother Nature's windtunnel test models. Anyone know of any?

[jrgospod]

Bmatthews,

I agree that form so a major criteria for the selection of my builds. I love wood so I have a wood Pod&B DLG, but I also have a LB2 that is much more pleasing it the eye. I recall a while back that POP-SI had an article about flight and they talked about the gull wing design, along with surface texture, and surface warping as the next improvements. I’ll have to look and see if I can find the article. It might lend some legitimacy to the hypothesis. Good luck with your design and keep having fun.

John

[greyhound flyer]

snip

I totally agree! That (and the silly desire to build things myself) is why I am currently building a Genie.

snip
-Chris

Hey, me too!

Just kidding, Chris. :D :D :D

For those of you who haven't seen the Genie build thread, it's in the Builders Workshop forum: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=219550

I'll hopefully be putting the right wingtip into the bag this week!

--Byron.

[jrgospod]

Bmatthews,

Found it :) !

The Shape of Wings to Come
Inspired by nature, aerospace engineers are striving for a more fluid way to control aircraft.

By Carl Hoffman | September 2003

__________________________________________________ __________


Here is the link to the POP-SI article:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/87dd5b4a1db84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/2.html

here is a quote about hyper-elliptic camber:

There's the dorsal fin of a shark, the broad wing of a seagull, and various hybrids—one of which tapers into a long narrow tip that curls downward and back like no wing I've ever seen. "This," he says, "is what we call the hyper-elliptic cambered span. So far it's the most efficient of all—with 15 percent improvement of lift over drag [compared with] a conventional planar wing. That's huge."


Several items in the article about surface also. ;)

John

[Jurgen]

Jurgen, that Strong version is far nicer looking than the Pro. It's not much larger but it's amazing how much even that little bit helps. Or perhaps it was just the camera angle.I don't know either if it is camera angle or another new bigger fuselage :). Time will tell.

[JustPlaneChris]

For those of you who haven't seen the Genie build thread, it's in the Builders Workshop forum

And for those who want to know more about the Genie, be sure and check out the March 2006 issue of RC Soaring Digest. (http://www.rcsoaringdigest.com/) There you will find an introduction to the Genie, written by the designer Harley Michaelis, and a teaser that mentions a series of construction article by yours truly. Part 1 has already been submitted.

-Chris

[Ollie]

A streamlined, fat fuselage is no big deal in the whole drag budget. Example:
SB-XC Cross Country
http://www.rnrproducts.com/

The fat fuselage is a big deal in the weight budget.

The best sailplane in beautiful class (in my mind) is one with no fuselage. It is the Horton VI.
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/ho_vi/ho_iv_in_flight.jpg

[BMatthews]

...The best sailplane in beautiful class (in my mind) is one with no fuselage. It is the Horton VI.....

Well that's one option. Just toss the fuselage away completely.... :D

[BMatthews]

Trident, to best compare and evaluate the effect of gull vs straight V dihedra vs polyhedral a series of wings that use the same top planform but have the various styles of dihedral would be best. Thread tufts or smoke trails can then be used to study the airflow over a range of lift coefficients to study the tip vortex formations. And if the wing was added to a pair of lift and drag sensing scales you may also be able to study the combined effect?

[harleym]

[/B]About "pretty sailplanes". . .as the designer of the Genie line of high-performance, competition/sport, scratch-buildable, composite sailplanes, I'll add my bit.

As far back as I can remember, I've been intrigued by and appreciative of beauty. One area would be in nature, beautiful women another, and sailplanes yet another. While beauty may be in 'the eye of the beholder', there are nevertheless certain standards, probably common to most of us, which make something aesthetically beautiful to us.

The human eye is, for one thing, attracted to curves and contours. Examples: we guys see it in the female face and figure, in auto lines, landscapes, a suspension bridge, a bend in the river and in our sailplanes, at least those designed for beauty as well as utility. I suspect most of us are similiarly wired up and see the blue of the sky, green of the field and white clouds as something that can't be improved upon. Surely, there are some standards most of us would agree on.

Getting to sailplanes, most of us would probably agree that the Bird of Time has a timeless beauty. Certainly the nose and pedestal mount of Mark's Supra encompass that standard of beauty. The eye visually fondles the curves and contours.

IMHO, some airframes though, in the interest of accommodating utility, embrace unique ugliness that borders on being offensive.

I concur that beauty and "character" in our sailplanes certainly depends, at least in part, on fuselage contours. I've sought to progressively enhance the lines in my Genie designs. Few of you have seen one and its sculptured fuselages. Pictures just don't do it justice. Even the glassed-over version, properly done, can be a work of art. The composite fuse is a work of art. Equally important, though, the airframe is designed for utility and is equally as high performing as the contemporary ARF of similar size and rugged construction.

Having scratch-built my own stuff forever, I categorically reject the notion that anything any good has to be an ARF or pre-fabbed kit and that we ordinary mortals must depend on others to think for us, at the expense of exercising our own creativity, while assaulting our pocketbooks! Well, help is here and more is on the way!

Present help is in the website, http://genie.rchomepage.com/. It details how to build a Genie and tells "WHAT'S AVAILABLE?" to help.

RCSD, http://www.rcsoaringdigest.com, the on-line magazine for the sailplane modeler-builder, is doing a series on the Genie, starting with the March issue. See pages 3,12, 13, 14 & 15. Print them out for reference.

Starting with the April issue, Chris Boultinghouse, who signs on here as
JustPlaneChris will be documenting his Genie build with text and pics. There'll be thumbnails to enlarge with accompanying text and a website to access. The issue will have a centerfold of the plans in miniature to show the "droop snoot" and "bowed boom" fuse profile.

Byron Seward (greyhound Flyer) has been documenting his Genie build here to contribute to the objective of getting more flyers into building.

With all that is and will become available, the way is paved for you to learn to do your own "pretty sailplanes" and become a real modeler-builder in the process. Take it from me, old LSF 023, it's great to do your own stuff, be independent, dream up new ideas, solve problems, contribute back to the hobby, save loads of money and enjoy a sense of pride and empowerment you will never otherwise experience.

[schrederman]

You can call this a "real" sailplane if you want... but it's still just a toy to me. I don't carry mail, passengers, or cargo, unless you count my fat @$$... And, if I'm flying it, I'm still just playing... I agree, we should just call them what they are - R/C Sailplanes...

Just my take on it... :p

Jack Womack

[Gryphin]

Thanks WimH. This will sound and probably is: silly, but if I can't build it (at least most of it), I don't wanna fly it. Would of had an AVA by now if there was a kit or short kit for it. Just a personal stupidity on my part and no reflection on anyone else's tastes. Still that Dragonfly is a real good looking plane.

erich

You can. It's called a Bubble Dancer. Kennedy just made an ARF out of Dr. Drela's BD. Short kits are over at LaserArts. Build support and writeups are over at the Allego-Lite Yahoo group. Absolutely gorgeous and well-performing plane. It's on my short list of planes to build.


On another note, that Dragonfly is a very nice looking plane. Some of them tho, with the "scale" fuse just look clunky and not very graceful at all. They give off this air of the big clumsy jock with no neck.

[dgliderguy]

Hey, Bruce,

I enjoyed your cabernet-inspired soliloquy. I have felt this way for a long time now, ever since the hollow-molded thousand-dollar lawn spears hit the scene. Fitted out and hardened for war, like a cruise missile, they do the job alrighty, but not the stuff of inspiration for doodling in your notebook during a boring meeting. You were playing my kind of music with your waxing words there, bro'!

Another Bird of Time faithful,

Don.

P.S. I liked your doodle! Build it for us.

[MTT]

I like the doodle, too...

Looks to me like the wing planform was inspired by the BOT (except fpr the gull-wing feature), and the fuse looks a lot like a Sperber jr. or Fafnir.

Michael

[erich]

Some of them tho, with the "scale" fuse just look clunky and not very graceful at all. They give off this air of the big clumsy jock with no neck.

Gryphin

Have the BD short kit. Also just purchased an Allegro-lite kit. Which will in all probability be my next kit, after finishing a Sagitta XC, which doing now.

I used feel the same way. Then one day I built a Paragon. It had this boxy looking fuselage that was well...clunky looking. After flying it a few months the clunkiness seemed to go away. Plus, it was enjoyable to build, and fly. First time I saw a BOT, my thoughts were "how can anyone like those ugly, fat old wing tips" . Decided to build it and see why others liked it. Well....looks pretty to me now. We tend to add to the things we see with our prejudices. To see things more clearly we need to look again and with a less critical eye. It's not so much the new breed of stick planes are not pretty I think they are (in their way), but lack variety. And we can all use a little spice.

erich

[steelhead]

I like both "built ups" and "composites"

The science that is milking every ounce of energy from the air currents,The three F's (Form Follows Function)

And the Beauty in flight, up there with sunlight showing through the wings. The "Beauty is in the eye if the beholder"

My girlfriend cant seem to understand what part of the plane I am refering to when I say it's SEXY!

I fly everything from "Stick and Tissue" to "Hollow Molded" But sometimes a straight wing on a stick with tailfeathers gets me out on the beach to watch the sunset.

The plane in this pic is foam, tape and an arrowshaft. Sure looks pretty from this angle :)

Dean

[BMatthews]

....and the fuse looks a lot like a Sperber jr. or Fafnir....

DOH! BUSTED! ! ! ! :D

The Sperber Jr is the one I was sort of playing off of for the fore and aft arc and general shape but with a more pointy nose. The Sperber Jr is literally an art object in 3D. As for the wings they come from the Wolf thankyouverymuch and not that "Johnny come lately" Thornberg thingy :D

Harley, only 4 posts but MAN when you do post you sure wade in with both feet... LOL :D

Don. lawn spears... I like that one...

PS: Hobie Hawk.....

[chlee]

Have you all heard of the "Bird of the Future" design? There was some discussion on one of the Yahoo forums, but I've not seen anyone build it. It's a BoT-style wing with a Bubble Dancer-style spar with Dark Star-style construction method. I've been thinking of building one from a short kit:
http://www.laserarts.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_30&products_id=190

This would combine the graceful look of the BoT with modern airfoils and full winch launch capability....

- Chung

[DLD]

This really is a fun thread. I find it interesting to hear all the different opinions about what looks best. In some instances, it appears that the finish is most important, and others the "curves" of the sailplane are the thing. When I was producing Saturn Sailplanes I learned that beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Some people thought my planes where beautiful while others did not at all. Others find beauty in the performance rather than looks. Although I can appreciate this approach, I never understood why something like a sailplane needed to be ugly. I used to tell my customers that there are many competitive sailplanes on the market or that you can scratchbuild, pick the one that you find attractive, trim it properly and practice, practice, practice, and you will be competitive. If you're not into competition, the same rules apply if you want to enjoy a weel mannered sailplane.
Good luck to all and happy soaring.

David Layne

[ChuckA]

About 30 years ago, I told a Sailaire owner that I liked the way his model flew but it was ugly. He replied that all were beautful when when flying high enough to be a speck in the sky. Two years later, I got disgusted with the slick F3B model I was flying and bought my first Sailaire. He was right. All are beautful when specked out.

[Vasoarin]

That is a great feeling to spec it out. More so when the the high tech wonders are working the slope looking any source of lift. Pardon me for feeling smug when they asked where mine was because they couldn't see it.

[BMatthews]

Chlee, the funny thing is I may have provided the inspiration for the Bird of the FUture in a thread I started about a year and a half or two years ago when I started a thread called Bird of the Millenium. In that I described using the BoT planform but with an updated airfoil. A few months later POOF we had the BotF. I'd like to think that I had a small part in starting the concept.

Oddly enough it also raises the concept of rebirthing many of the great looking older designs and just updating the airfoil. Can you imagine the totally pretty looking orginal Esprit or the later Grand Esprit updated with modern airfoils and spar tech? Or Carl Lorbers Gaggler? Now there was a beautiful design. What about an updated Aquila with a new airfoil and a slightly rounder fuselage?

[Soar_dude]

There is nothing like flying a well made woody. Woody's can look just as sexy and slick as "glass slippers" composite gliders. Heck even foam can look good!
I think there will always be a place in this hobby for woody's they are the roots of this hobby "or is it addiction".

Soar Dude

[JustPlaneChris]

What about an updated Aquila with a new airfoil and a slightly rounder fuselage?

Or the Sagitta 600 / 900? I always had the hots for one of those, but couldn't afford the kit back then as a young punk and didn't know enough to scratch build from the plans. :rolleyes:

-Chris

[chlee]

Bruce,
We see eye to eye, it seems. Many of these tried and true designs could be brought up to modern standards my updating the airfoil (say, Selig or Drela 'foils) and using carbon sparcaps. How 'bout a Mirage or Windfree with AG series airfoils and carbon spar -- anyone? The updated Mirage has been on my to-build list for about five years.

Hard winch launches and large speed range are all good, but you also get to see the afternoon sun shine through the built-up structure...

- Chung

[BMatthews]

I think it was the Selig 4233 that was intended to follow the same philosoply as the MB airfoil but that also cured a lot of the MB's woes. That would be a nice upgrade. Use the same multiple turbulator spars as well as adding a few extra behind the main spar to better support the covering for a truer airfoil and you'd have a lovely looker that retains a lot of the "toy airplane" look or old timey model look that the Mirage has.