Will the DESIGNER stand up.

[t michael jennings]

Gentlemen,

Who is considered the DESIGNER if a model aircraft?

How is it determined who is the DESIGNER?

Most Control Line pilots will credit George Aldrich as the DESIGNER of the Nobler. 
What about those that use the Nobler wing and moment lengths and put different wing tips and modify the fuselage.  Then, they put a new name on the model and call themselves the DESIGNER.
Can they sell the plans?

Another example is the Fancherized SIG Twister.
Mr. Fancher modified the following:
1)  moment lengths
2) stabilizer and elevator length
3)  fuselage profile
4)  included half ribs in the wing.

Mr. Fancher maintained:
1)  wing span
2)  rib profile.

Could Mr. Fancher claim to be the DESIGNER of the Fancherized SIG Twister.
Could Mr. Fancher sell the plans?

Please, realize Mr. Fancher gave credit to SIG (and several others) and referred to his work as Kit Bashing.

Again, who is the DESIGNER of the Fancherized SIG Twister?
    SIG (Mike Gretz) or Mr. Fancher


T Michael Jennings
Knoxville, TN

[Ted Fancher]

Gentlemen,

Who is considered the DESIGNER if a model aircraft?

How is it determined who is the DESIGNER?

Most Control Line pilots will credit George Aldrich as the DESIGNER of the Nobler. 
What about those that use the Nobler wing and moment lengths and put different wing tips and modify the fuselage.  Then, they put a new name on the model and call themselves the DESIGNER.
Can they sell the plans?

Another example is the Fancherized SIG Twister.
Mr. Fancher modified the following:
1)  moment lengths
2) stabilizer and elevator length
3)  fuselage profile
4)  included half ribs in the wing.

Mr. Fancher maintained:
1)  wing span
2)  rib profile.

Could Mr. Fancher claim to be the DESIGNER of the Fancherized SIG Twister.
Could Mr. Fancher sell the plans?

Please, realize Mr. Fancher gave credit to SIG (and several others) and referred to his work as Kit Bashing.

Again, who is the DESIGNER of the Fancherized SIG Twister?
    SIG (Mike Gretz) or Mr. Fancher


T Michael Jennings
Knoxville, TN

T Michael,

Thank you for recognizing I never claimed to do anything other than "bash" Mike's excellent and popular design for the sole purpose of bringing it a decade or so further along the continuum of stunt innovation and to make it a little less susceptible to damage in flip-overs that are common given the usual "less than perfect" surfaces over which kits of this type often are flown.

In addition, I would point out that the name "Fancherized Twister" was coined by someone other than me and that I've never attempted to sell plans and/or kits of the "bashed" version.  The modded version was nothing other than an exercise in kit bashing used as a tool for a couple of CL Stunt columns in Model Aviation.

I would go one step further than your question and suggest that Impacts, Trivial Pursuits, Vectors and Thundergazers owe as much or more to Mr Aldrich's design acumen (or serendipitous selection of random component configurations...I favor the former) as they do to their "recognized" designers.  The history of stunt model "designs" consists more of recurrent small scale enhancements of the fundamentally sound aerodynamics of light to moderate wing loadings, competent and consistent powertrains and balance of forces than it does to any "eureka" moments subsequent to George's original lightbulb in a bubble revelation of "hey, if I wanted to fly stunt slower, how would I go about doing so?"

Give each of those five hot shots from the nats flyoff one of George's Noblers and their personal choice of propeller energy and...in the same conditions they flew in on top five day...you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference.  George was "that" right; and Mike, myself and the rest of us are primarily re-arrangers of deck chairs.

Ted

[Tim Wescott]

Another example is the Fancherized SIG Twister.

To my knowledge Ted Fancher never made or published plans for the Fancherized Twister (although Bob Kruger did, in 2002).  In fact, if you read the columns where he lays out the specifications for the "Fancherized" Twister, it is supposed to be an encouragement for people to kit-bash any kit, and gives set of suggestions for how to do so productively.  The Twister choice was somewhat arbitrary (I can't remember the reasons given, or if there were underlying ones -- I'd love to hear them from the Fancher's mouth).

Read his columns on the Fancherized Twister, and then you can make a Fancherized Just-About-Anything-Old (I have a semi-Fancherized Sig Banshee that flies very well, thank you, and I'm considering building a Fancherized Nobler).

[Tim Wescott]

Any "original" design involves a lot of copying of things that went before.  There's very little that's truly new under the sun.

So I would say that whoever makes it unique enough, and builds it first, and maybe slaps a name on it and draws up plans, can take credit for being the "designer".

And yes -- it's all gray areas.  Is an Impact a new thing, or is it just a big Nobler with a fat airfoil and big tail?  Is the Nobler even a new thing, or were there already planes in 1948 that had flaps, and George Aldrich just happened to be the guy who made a combination that really worked, then published?  Is the Wright Flyer a new thing, or is it just two bird wings stacked one atop the other, with an engine turning and an overworked guy stirring a stick to keep it in the air?

[Serge_Krauss]

Well...

a couple lingering questions:

1) What does it mean for two designs to be really "alike," ...or just how close to identical are two planes that are termed "alike"?

2) If there turns out to be a final "best" solution, what of two designers who use their own experiences and apply theory correctly to arrive separately at absolutely identical final confingurations and sizes that approximate that "best" solution? Is only the first the designer?

I really don't see today's best stunters as being all that much like the Nobler anyway, but regardless of how close one comes, applying design principles and experience independently, I don't see him/her as a copier.

Just obstinate, I suppose.

SK

[phil c]

I think this one is didn't copy much, except for stretching a full scale profile.
650 squares  65 in. span, 6.5 AR,  LA 46 on a 10/4 prop.  About the only thing "copied" is the NACA 0018 airfoil, a tapered wing, and flat tail surfaces.

Phil C

[RknRusty]

Speaking of George Aldrich's designs, do any of you brilliant and imaginative deck chair re-arrangement engineers think the Flite Streak would benefit from hinging the flaps? If I'm not mistaken they're static on the Streak models now. Were they ever hinged? I'm so in love with my Baby Streaks, that I want to build a big one to follow my Shoestring, which, though a marvelous plane, is suffering through the punishment of my stunt training.
Thanks,
Rusty

[John Kelly]

...both the Flite Streak,( step 14.)and the Super Combat Streak, ( step 15.) flaps could be hinged.

[Avaiojet]

Speaking of George Aldrich's designs, do any of you brilliant and imaginative deck chair re-arrangement engineers think the Flite Streak would benefit from hinging the flaps? If I'm not mistaken they're static on the Streak models now. Were they ever hinged? I'm so in love with my Baby Streaks, that I want to build a big one to follow my Shoestring, which, though a marvelous plane, is suffering through the punishment of my stunt training.
Thanks,
Rusty

Rusty,

Benefit or not I wouldn't know because both my Flite Streaks had flaps. Never flew one without flaps. This one, 1959, had a shortned fuselage.

Both flew well as I remember.

Charles

[RknRusty]

Nice, Charles, thanks for the pic. Streaks have some great looking lines, I can't wait to build a big one. I bet that one with the chopped fuse would really dance. What sort of flying did you do back then, freestyle sport flying, pattern, slow combat......?

Hope this isn't too much threadjacking...
but here are my Baby Streaks, one with a Tee Dee, one with a Norvel, both bladder fed:

[Avaiojet]

Nice, Charles, thanks for the pic. Streaks have some great looking lines, I can't wait to build a big one. I bet that one with the chopped fuse would really dance. What sort of flying did you do back then, freestyle sport flying, pattern, slow combat......?

Hope this isn't too much threadjacking...
but here are my Baby Streaks, one with a Tee Dee, one with a Norvel, both bladder fed:

Rusty,

Great bunch of models! Looks like a fun day!  

I can't wait to build a big one.

Do you mean the Flite Streak or one made larger than the kit?

I built a FS that isn't finished, soon though. Not perfect but it's not awful. Not sure if I did a build on my FS?   I did place some photos.

Our group did all kinds of flying. Didn't matter and we all got along. None of us had training but we had fun. I was the weak pattern guy along with a couple of others. But we still just put our models in the sky and made holes.

I was the only guy designing and making changes, like my twin boom Ares. I built two of these models. Never any criticism for change and ideas were always welcomed. Times and modelers have changed.

I'm still living in the old days.

Doing what I do because I like it and doing what I do just for fun. And always giving back.

I have no headaches this way. Well, I might create a few.  

Hey! Hey!

Charles

[RknRusty]

I was thinking the Brodak Original Flite Streak kit

http://brodak.com/control-line-kits/brodak/trainer/original-flite-streak-kit.html
Wing Span: 42
Plane Length: 27
Wing Area: 390
Engine: .19 to .35

That's quite a machine you've got there in that picture.

[Avaiojet]

Rusty,

Yes, 42" for the actual Flight Streak. What a design! An incredibly gorgeous model in flight and on the ground. Much prettier being held by ladies!


That's not me. That's Donald Hartman, passed on at age 18 although not that old in the photo. The photo brings back many memories. Not really sure of the year, somewhere between 1960 and 1962? Car in the background could be a giveaway.

The "machine" was an interesting model. My second twin boom.

Lots of flap area, probably more than needed, tri-gear plus an adjustable and working wing tip tab. Probably has to much stab area, a change I would make, but the moments were fine.

We never gave thought to weight. I do have ancient pieces and parts for a third twin boom.

This is actually a gag photo, but some of these parts I may use for the third twin boom. Tapered wings look nicer, this one is not so I won't be using the wing. Might use the wing for a stunt Mystery Ship.

Charles