![]() ![]() Heck, the canard was tested to failure years after the first builder Long EZs were flying. Yes, there was design work, but not "sophisticated" design effort. RAF simply took what they knew about composite construction and "built" the Long EZ to what they knew would work, plus a little more to account for builder variances. And Nat sure as hell didn't do any sophisticated design effort on the Cozy. I think you'd be shocked to find that RAF didn't spend alot of "design time" on the Long-EZ. > No more sophistication than the sophistication required to understand composite design. CAD doesn't make the airplane any better. It showed up in the mid-80s and faded pretty fast. The one that comes to mind is the Prescott Pusher.ĭon't recognize the name? Not surprising. There have in fact been homebuilts with drawings that were prepared using CAD. Oh, by the way: there are some CAD renderings of certain parts of the Cozy over on Marc Zeitlin's site. #MODUL8 SKIN MANUAL#The drawings for them were all done by humans, using manual tools. The thousands of aircraft built using Burt and Nat's plans are living proof that the existing plans work just fine.Ī great many very fine aircraft were designed without the benefit of CAD. The engineering that went into the design of the EZ aircraft and the Cozy is plenty sophisticated.Įxactly what, besides aesthetically pleasing drawings, would actually be accomplished by taking the existing plans and putting in a lot of effort to convert them to CAD? Sure, you could drive a CNC machine with the file and automate the cutting of parts (people HAVE done this), but in the real world how many of us have access to such equipment? It doesn't help you make the actual design any better. CAD lets you produce nice-looking drawings easily. A CAD system is nothing more than a really fancy pencil. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |