A few people who observed my flights said they liked how it flew. But that didn't help me to fall in love with this model, although I put all my best efforts into it.
At the end it is not a bad flyer, but I have never enjoyed to fly it. Neither my wrist did.
So please do not ask me to stay quite, because I as a buyer and a long term user of the product have a right to share my opinion and experience.
Absolutely, I think everyone else believes in the concept of free speech - but expect other people to do the same. Free speech is a two-way street.
I think you are fooling yourself on the topic of airfoil simulation, since the airfoil you modeled is not the airfoil as implemented, and your simulation is completely naive, not modeling several other items that are clearly known to make a huge difference - the hinge line dynamics, and the finite span, to name just two whoppers. That alone makes blanket statements about some hypothetical properties of an actual airplane completely speculative.
The fact that other people have flown the "same" airfoil with great success proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are just wrong. That's not a moral failing, but insisting on ignoring documented facts and real-life experience over your clearly hypothetical and obviously simplistic model does not speak to your "objectivity".
On the topic of your particular airplane, I wouldn't dispute your experiences, you didn't like it, fair enough. Of course there's a host of vastly more likely reasons for it not to fly well that you could look at before you start digging into airfoil polars. At this point you are so convinced it is hopeless, based on your simulation results, that every setback will be leapt upon as "proof" you were right all along.
That's a psychological problem called "confirmation bias", and would likely make the effort pointless for you and for the rest of us to try to help. A less clinical but more accurate description is "believing your own bullshit". Worse yet, you are trying to engage other people by helpfully descending on this thread to tell everyone they were wasting their time. You are perfectly within your rights to do that, just as the rest of us are within our rights to ignore you or dispute your premise.
Other people, without the benefit of your "advanced knowledge", successfully got the airplane to work. It does have other problems, like durability, that are soluble, and a variant of "center of lateral area" theory that Brad and I got into a minor disagreement with on SSW when it first came out, but those are not fatal.
If even one person got the airplane (or other airplanes) to work with this airfoil, then you are unequivocally, objectively, incorrect. Many other people have done exactly that, so...
Anyway, that's *my* exercise of free speech for the day, and my objective (albeit speculative in some areas) evaluation of the situation here.
Brett