Bill Daniels wrote:


Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

I didn't see anything on their web site about "changing the rules". They
want to expand peoples options with a high performance _foot-launched_
glider. It was characterized as a better choice than the Carbon Dragon,
which, in the hands of Gary Osoba and others, has shown us there are
other "rules" out there that we didn't even know about (e.g., microlift).


If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

And this glider may fit in very well with this philosophy. Think about
hang glider pilots and what they fly. Remember, it's designed for foot
launching. I didn't get the impression they thought the high performance
sailplane crowd would push their lead sleds into the trash heap!

--
Eric Greenwell
USA