There are two major points of dissemination here that needs to be tracked objectively as possible with some deductive reasoning helping in lack of any other facts available:
1) source material with dimensions published, how is this weighed in terms of authenticity?
2) foundational basis for support of the subject information--the validity of the data- or simply, why should we trust it.
Lets start with:
1. Source material: TR-11
Of course, employees and contracted sourcing come in and out of Estes, of any company all the time, but when they stand by it with their name on the product or intellectual property right, that is of considerable (and legal) standing. It could not have been approved by Estes without their quality assurance of its content. When one writes 'Design of the Alpha' and describes the numbers used for calculation of its aerodynamics , it really doesn't get much plainer language than what you read there on 'pg 42'. Estes approved it, and that is substantial evidence to support the design.
2. Validity
There has to be numbers to go to production was the point for the whole balsa issue:
Sure one can make a model in a night, as Mike and Bill have cited in their interviews, but you have to then rationalize the numbers, as the designers themselves also have cited, with maybe the aide of drawing, so that you can have a bill of materials. A bill of material is line item list of quantities required for a single unit to be made and then cost projections are made according to resources needed to produced it. Those designers were in charge of calculating what will be needed to build the model, with no more than what it is needed to maximize economy of the unit cost (maximize profit). It was likely that there was drawing with dimensions for these calculations and then go to production of additional aides for the would-be builder, and therefore a pattern was made for this purpose as well as instructions. Patterns are derived from drawings through a production line logic. Design Development is a different contract phase that comes before Production Development. The patterns and instructions are usually made after the DD, when it can be produced rather quickly based on known dimensions from DD phase.
It is likely, and I think proven, that the dimensions come from Estes in house R&D of which TR-11 directly comes from as stated in the booklet.
This is about as certain as one can reasonably get without more facts.
To summarize, sure when can speculate on a lot of things. As you know, none none of the designers were trained as engineers. Estes being business savvy could only afford non-professionals, and to get the job done, likely trained them in-house. How much they deviated from the standard model is not really known to us, but only a little through them anecdotally through less than scholarly interviews. In short, You cannot substantiate intent. It is not factual evidence.We can only make inferences from direct observations and not second degree suppositions based on conjecture stemming from desires, imaginings of what the intent might have been.
As for this being perceived as a never ending topic, this is just standard. Professional researchers spend entire careers on one subject. As for the Alpha Fin Plan, hopefully more stuff comes to light to change the status quo, but that has to be evidential. Such as it is, now I believe this is the only reasonable conclusion one can make.
I hope this helps.
1) source material with dimensions published, how is this weighed in terms of authenticity?
2) foundational basis for support of the subject information--the validity of the data- or simply, why should we trust it.
Lets start with:
1. Source material: TR-11
Of course, employees and contracted sourcing come in and out of Estes, of any company all the time, but when they stand by it with their name on the product or intellectual property right, that is of considerable (and legal) standing. It could not have been approved by Estes without their quality assurance of its content. When one writes 'Design of the Alpha' and describes the numbers used for calculation of its aerodynamics , it really doesn't get much plainer language than what you read there on 'pg 42'. Estes approved it, and that is substantial evidence to support the design.
2. Validity
There has to be numbers to go to production was the point for the whole balsa issue:
Sure one can make a model in a night, as Mike and Bill have cited in their interviews, but you have to then rationalize the numbers, as the designers themselves also have cited, with maybe the aide of drawing, so that you can have a bill of materials. A bill of material is line item list of quantities required for a single unit to be made and then cost projections are made according to resources needed to produced it. Those designers were in charge of calculating what will be needed to build the model, with no more than what it is needed to maximize economy of the unit cost (maximize profit). It was likely that there was drawing with dimensions for these calculations and then go to production of additional aides for the would-be builder, and therefore a pattern was made for this purpose as well as instructions. Patterns are derived from drawings through a production line logic. Design Development is a different contract phase that comes before Production Development. The patterns and instructions are usually made after the DD, when it can be produced rather quickly based on known dimensions from DD phase.
It is likely, and I think proven, that the dimensions come from Estes in house R&D of which TR-11 directly comes from as stated in the booklet.
This is about as certain as one can reasonably get without more facts.
To summarize, sure when can speculate on a lot of things. As you know, none none of the designers were trained as engineers. Estes being business savvy could only afford non-professionals, and to get the job done, likely trained them in-house. How much they deviated from the standard model is not really known to us, but only a little through them anecdotally through less than scholarly interviews. In short, You cannot substantiate intent. It is not factual evidence.We can only make inferences from direct observations and not second degree suppositions based on conjecture stemming from desires, imaginings of what the intent might have been.
As for this being perceived as a never ending topic, this is just standard. Professional researchers spend entire careers on one subject. As for the Alpha Fin Plan, hopefully more stuff comes to light to change the status quo, but that has to be evidential. Such as it is, now I believe this is the only reasonable conclusion one can make.
I hope this helps.
Last edited: