• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

Prize Money

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
4,862
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
The current Boeing "Go Fly" contest, http://goflyprize.com/, has got me thinking about the value of such programs.

While the first New York to Paris nonstop flight of 1927 was an obvious boost to the interest in aviation it did little to advance the technology involved.

The man powered aircraft challenges demonstrated some interesting structures and capabilities but have done relatively little to advance aviation IMHO.

The "GO FLY" challenge will no doubt create considerable interest and encourage many proposals but the contest constraints will direct those efforts in a direction that may not be the optimum solution to the most promising and productive solutions to the real life problems of commuters.

Other recent prizes have gone to a team winning with a Cessna 172 and another to a team producing a modified version of a production glider.

I get that the goal is not to create a production mass produced product but I also question how much technology is advanced by these programs.

I have come to the conclusion that technology would be developed more effectively by working to solve real world problems.

The typical winning solution is not the most technological advanced solution but the least advanced solution to solve the constraints of the contest.

This forces a requirement for a "good contest" to have good constraints. It is extremely difficult to write good constraints for a problem/solution proposal when the full extent of the problem is open ended and the set of possible solutions is infinite. The result is invariably unnecessary constraints that complicate and limit the solution set to something less than optimal.

I see this as an issue in the "Go Fly" competition. The real "outside the box" solutions would not have a chance of selection as a Phase I winner as they would be judged as not possible or not practical.

I would like to know what comments others may have. Would a design using other than currently available powerplants and rotating componenets such as propellers have a chance at selection?

If a proposal was for a 400 pound gross weight bee, dragon fly, pterosaur*, song bird or humming bird would it have a chance at selection? Is it reasonable to write such a proposal?

* Pterosaurs were a highly successful group of carnivorous reptiles with well‐developed wings and an excellent flight ability. Quote direct from the internet http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0001546.html
 
Back
Top