- Jul 29, 2005
- Orange County, California
Who has been a "nay sayer"? I've seen several requests - and made a couple myself - for some supporting evidence or substantiation of some of the claims made here, but I don't recall a single post in this thread to the effect that low-AR designs are "bad" or "won't work." Asking for substantiation isn't nay-saying. It's nothing more than asking for additional information.... contrary to the nay sayers, ...
That's a good example of what I'm talking about. What exactly is it about the flight envelope of an arbitrary low-AR design that is "not generally available from [unspecified] other types"? Is that an opinion, or is it verifiable by analysis or historical precedent? Can you give us data to support this claim? This is an earnest request for information, not "nay-saying."...they [low-AR designs] offer a flight envelope that is not generally available from other types.
The issue is that the "video evidence" is not quantitative, and not a reasonable response to questions that are looking for quantitative answers. "Flies good" is not a design criteria. I can't design to "flies good" without turning that pair of words into a set of design requirements a given design has to meet. We can't pull climb rates from the videos, we can't pull airspeeds, local conditions information, or any information about the airplane in terms of weights, weight-and-balance information, etc. I don't think anyone has dismissed the videos you and others have provided - they simply don't provide the information necessary to answer the questions we've posed about claims that have been made. No more, no less.I just can’t understand why anyone could completely dismiss the video evidence and eye witness reports just because it goes against their pre-conceived ideas.
You're quoting me here, so let me reiterate that I was posting a very reasonable concern about operation of low-AR designs that use vortex lift in one particular performance context. Somehow pulling "low-AR designs can't climb" out of what I said above requires some mental gymnastics that I don't support. I didn't say, "low-AR designs can't climb" at any point in this discussion. I did say that low-AR designs may require more installed power to achieve the same climb performance as an otherwise-equal longer-span design, but that's not "can't climb" by any stretch of the imagination.There have been a number of references to the climb rate , or lack of, of LAR aircraft the quote from post #321 is just one.
“I'm of the opinion that low-AR designs are a poor choice for STOL operations. Yes, you can use vortex lift and the high drag associated with it to produce very short landings. But any runway on which you land, you have to be able to take off from again unless you want to become a permanent fixture at the location. So an ability to land in extremely short distances is rather pointless unless you can take off again and climb out safely from the same location. Here, low-AR is not your friend, for the reasons we've already discussed.“
"Trolls"? "... have won"? What do you mean? Nobody's said low-AR designs can't or won't work. Nobody's said there was no design mission specification where a low-AR design might be an, or even the, appropriate design choice. There's a very large and significant difference between "trolling" or "nay-saying" something, and simply asking legitimate questions and voicing concerns about it. I don't appreciate the characterization as "troll" or "nay-sayer", if indeed you're pointing them at me.Anyway the trolls have won, I have nothing more tos say.