[log in to unmask] writes:
>"Long live the Gossamer Albatross"
Which reminded me of one of the things I like most.
In the history of human powered flight, there have been many attempts by
"serious" aero engineers with an industrial perspective which have failed. I
think I am right in saying that much of the success of the Gossamer Albatross
came from the involvement of model aircraft people who had a different set of
experiences and a different perspective on what was reasonable and realistic. I
expect Dan can enlighten us on this.
Going back to the research/science zone, The bicycle evolved over a long
period, and many people contributed, so it is difficult to point to a precise
genesis. The Gossamer Albatross was part of a shorter, more direct sequence of
innovations, there was a point when the means for human-powered flight across
the English Channel did not exist and another when it did.
I would be interested to hear the views of Lubomir, and others, on whether the
requirements to fly that distance under human power always existed, and were
therefore a proper subject for scientific research (in Lubomir's terms), or
whether it required the act of synthesis by the designers, testers and an
athletic, heroic aeronaut first. With hindsight we can say that the
requirements were always true but they were certainly not accessible to anybody
other than the designers.
Clearly there was a great deal of discrete knowledge which contributed to the
adventure but nobody had managed to create the required mix before. Were the
designers engaged in a scientific venture and did their creation represent a
contribution to knowledge? If so, could that contribution have been made
without the act of designing?
Anybody out there want to take a potshot with their crossbow?
best wishes from Sheffield (a long way from the sea so far)
Chris Rust
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|