On 3/29/2017 12:26 PM, firsys wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:24:25 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
On 3/23/2017 7:56 PM, wrote:
The March issue of Maxim magazine has a multi page illustrated article
on gliders. Haven't seen it yet, but it is apparently pretty well done.
YMMV

And Tim Taylor posted the link...

http://www.maxim.com/rides/perlan-project-glider-2017-2

Am I the only one dismayed to find 'political correctness' now apparently
and solidly a part of the reporting of soaring stories 'for/by the
mainstream press' too?!? Ever since Airbus money entered the picture
(allowing completion of the raw ship Greg Cole (Windward Performance)
designed and created, it seems all mention of Cole's contributions have
disappeared from 'the Perlan II story.'

I'm not bashing Airbus (OTOH I thank them for keeping the project
alive!), nor am I taking a stance on the alleged fallout (which is none
of my business and of which I am 100% ignorant), but at a fundamental
level, this recasting of the story is at best misleading, and at worst
fundamentally dishonest in my view.

Thumbs down on the 'whomevers' behind it.

Respectfully, Bob W.

I have read the article and , even if there are sins of omission, it seems
to me that this is a generally accurate article about Perlan and wave
soaring; just what is the issue for Bob W?

Perhaps I erred via brevity?

I agree the article as-written is quite well done and am glad Maxim magazine
has seen fit to run it. Further, for various reasons listed at the end of this
sentence, I'm in no way trying to call out the author or Maxim magazine for
'sins of omission,' e.g.: I have no insight into the reasons underlying the
article's structure (e.g. space, author didn't think to ask, etc.); Maxim
magazine has every right to edit every article they run as they see fit; I've
no pretensions of being an Article King of any beyond those of my own authorship.

'[T]he issue for Bob W' is simply that this particular article happens to not
say one word about how Perlan II's sailplane came into existence...as has 100%
of every other 'post [alleged] monetary issue' article I've seen since Steve
Fosset's death, and 'the (year-plus?) assembly halt' of Perlan II pieces that
followed and ultimately was resolved through the influx of Airbus money. That
includes more than one subsequent mention in the USA's "Soaring" magazine.

I realize that as the Perlan II project moves forward, so too will the general
focus within media articles, and don't expect - at this stage of the Project -
every article to spotlight the (years ago, now) design and creation of the
ship. But the suddenness with which *any* mention of its origin has completely
vanished in every article I've seen that has been written following renewal of
ship-build/completion, seems as abrupt as darkness follows upon opening a
circuit's light switch. It was literally, a (100% sweeping, to date, in my
exposure) night-and-day sort of change in public presentation.

THAT's my issue. The sudden and utter ignoring of a fascinating (to me and I
suspect to many engineers who [unlike me] are not also 'glider nuts') aspect
of the Perlan II Project. So my initial post's question was not intended
rhetorically. It's as if somewhere related to the most recent infusion of cash
into the project, decisions were made to actively attempt to wipe part of the
Project's historical (and to be hoped, historic) slate clean. For example,
last time I checked, I could find on Windward Performance's website no mention
at all of its part in Perlan II's creation. Taken as a whole, the shift in
public presentation just seems 'beyond odd' to me.

Renny R: "Roger all you wrote!" I'm not worried, just perplexed...and more
than a touch skeptical of how the present state of 'article affairs' has come
to be!

Respectfully,
Bob W.

P.S. Here's my generic summary of the Perlan II Project relating to the
sailplane and how it's arrived at its present state, for readers perhaps not
so familiar with the story...

Perlan II was started and almost completed under Steve Fossett's financial
sponsorship. Fossett subsequently perished in a thoroughly-reported power
plane accident in the Sierras some years ago now, and after several 'Project
apparently quiescent' years, Airbus eventually agreed to assume ongoing
sponsorship of a Project, taking up this torch with a completed glider
*design*, completed design molds, partially completed glider, etc. I'm under
the impression (could be wrong) there was some level of 'interim financial
support' from another 'Fossett-like' individual who lacked the financial
wherewithal to bring the ship to a completed state...leading, ultimately, to
Airbus's participation. Understandably, that part of the story wasn't
generally made known to the public-at-large.

'Somewhere along the post-Fossett participation' that above-mentioned
'reporting switch' was thrown, and today, we seem to exist in a reporting
world 100% uncurious (at least in the reporting sense of things) about all
aspects of how the ship has come to be. It required an extremely talented
original designer (Greg Cole), etc., to get as far as it did before Fossett's
death. Today, ALL mention of Cole has dropped off every one of the 'post
Project renewal' story lines I've encountered. Seems a little unjust NOT to
credit Cole's design and development work even IF there were a harsh falling
out of the players.

For the record, I have zero financial interest in Windward Performance or
Airbus. I'm simply a 'curious/presently-dismayed glider nut.'