A couple of years back, I was trying to expand my consulting business into the area of air racer drag reduction. Having done years of research in the field, I had found numerous areas that air racers then (and still today) ignore that are ripe for large degrees of improvement.
I found a customer who was nearly perfect. He was near the top of his class, a highly capable race pilot, and did not plan on any other modifications to his aircraft. This made for a "stable" experimental environment; i.e. a pilot and aircraft that I could count on to produce repeatable results and solid data on modifications. He was not willing to pay a lot of money, but was able to provide many expensive test assets including a chase plane and pilots.
Starting with an initial theoretical drag reduction experiment, the results were encouraging, but did not reach the potential of the research (the infamous blue-foam experiment at PRS 2000). After discussion, extensive tuft testing of the aircraft at varying CL and Rn was conducted. The testing showed what were, and were not significant drag areas and how to fix these areas.
The fixes did not come from some wild guesses or obscure theories. They were instead the result of the largest aerospace companies in the world spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching exactly these issues; combined with a couple of insightfull individuals applying that knowledge to the specific parameters of air racing and creating the design rules for application of these theories to aircraft in the CL, Rn, and Mach ranges of air racing. The specific aircraft did not matter: the Reynolds numbers and lift coefficients for the theory and application of the drag reduction concepts applied to aircraft ranging from 250 mph Glassairs to 500 mph Mustangs.
What resulted was a set of very simple fairings applied to a Questair Venture that created a 5.6% drag reduction where a 5.3 to 6.1% reduction was predicted. To hit the drag reduction target so closely was a validation of the design theory and the drag reduction method that created it. The drag reduction was impossible to refute: the test aircraft had never posted a course speed over 297 mph, and now clocked consistant 309 to 311 with not even a piston ring change between years. Applying this to other air racers and kit aircraft seemed to be a forgone conclusion and a modest business could have followed. It was not to be.
First, I was involved with a marginal engine builder who oversold his product and himself. Tarnished by this, the owner of NuVenture loudly proclaimed to everyone who asked that my modifications were not of any value. (He used stronger language than that, but we need to respect decorum here) I have news for any doubters: most teams would kill for 12 to 14 mph; I did it with less than 5 lb of fiberglass.
Second, I did not care about aesthetics. A polished DNF is still a DNF. The ugliest winner still goes home with the trophy girl. The fairings I produced were a little rough, however the flanges and surface finish did not matter within the areas of the boundary layers we were operating in. I am a racer. I have raced motorcycles, karts, hydroplanes, and with this project, airplanes. For the first three, I was the driver. I have NEVER seen a pretty paint job or a coat of wax do anything but cause me to slide ignominiously off the bodywork. In the case of the Venture fairings, I specifically told the customer NOT to fillet the gaps and corners as this would cause an increase in pressure recovery with an attendant increase in drag.
Lo and behold, the next year the aircraft shows up with a fancy paint job and fillets in all the corners. The owner comes to me with a hang dog expression and asks what he can do to get back the 3 mph the fancy paint and bondo has cost him. With absolutely NO sypathy, I told him to rip the bondo out of the corners. Dismayed at the prospect of messing up a paint job that cost him double what he spent on my modifications, he refused. He did state that he was having a new Legacy built and would call me for drag reduction on that as well. Since I had proven that I knew what I was doing as far as drag reduction went in areas that no one else in the air racing world understood, I expected that I would be assured of the new business. The test aircraft was later sold to another racer who encountered an SIO (system induced osscilation) in wake turbulance and crashed. Every pilot in the class agrees that the modifications did not affect the aircraft with respect to the accident. However, the publicity could hardly be called positive.
Third strike. The owner took his Legacy kit to a bondo shop that does pro-building for owners who don't want to do it themselves. This is the dark side of the experimental "amateur-built" business. The owner then gave all of my research (he was provided with a report as part of the program) to the shop and PAID THEM to duplicate it. Tuft tests were performed copying my earlier work and fairings were made with a poor interpretation of my work. Three Legacys and one Glassair have now flown at Reno with modifications that came from an unethical (but not illegal) transfer of my intellectual property. Kits of these modifications are now on the market.
It is my own darned fault that I did not get a non-disclosure with my customer when we did the original work. It is small consolation that the person copying the work has done so in a sub-optimum fashion, resulting in only 50 to 70% of the drag reduction possible. However, this is enough that it is unlikely that anyone can compete since the additional gain from optimum modifications is only 2 to 3 mph.
My ethical question is this: I am more than a little furious at the theft and misuse of my intellectual property and of someone claiming credit for my work (albeit poorly interpreted). Worse than that is the loss to an unqualified competitor of what I believe should have been my business. Should I:
a) Suffer in silence while someone else makes a living off of the modifications I brought to air racing?
b) Publish an article in Kitplanes and/or AAFO explaining the technology, how to do it, and how the pretenders have not quite gotten it right?
c) Attempt to compete with the deficit of being late to market and undercapitalized because my competition has been subsidized by a former customer?
d) Something else? (suggestions please)
I apologize for the anger expressed here. However, I will never work for anyone again without non-disclosure in place and I acknowledge that this whole situation exists because I let some of my intellectual property go without properly protecting it.
Eric Ahlstrom
I found a customer who was nearly perfect. He was near the top of his class, a highly capable race pilot, and did not plan on any other modifications to his aircraft. This made for a "stable" experimental environment; i.e. a pilot and aircraft that I could count on to produce repeatable results and solid data on modifications. He was not willing to pay a lot of money, but was able to provide many expensive test assets including a chase plane and pilots.
Starting with an initial theoretical drag reduction experiment, the results were encouraging, but did not reach the potential of the research (the infamous blue-foam experiment at PRS 2000). After discussion, extensive tuft testing of the aircraft at varying CL and Rn was conducted. The testing showed what were, and were not significant drag areas and how to fix these areas.
The fixes did not come from some wild guesses or obscure theories. They were instead the result of the largest aerospace companies in the world spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching exactly these issues; combined with a couple of insightfull individuals applying that knowledge to the specific parameters of air racing and creating the design rules for application of these theories to aircraft in the CL, Rn, and Mach ranges of air racing. The specific aircraft did not matter: the Reynolds numbers and lift coefficients for the theory and application of the drag reduction concepts applied to aircraft ranging from 250 mph Glassairs to 500 mph Mustangs.
What resulted was a set of very simple fairings applied to a Questair Venture that created a 5.6% drag reduction where a 5.3 to 6.1% reduction was predicted. To hit the drag reduction target so closely was a validation of the design theory and the drag reduction method that created it. The drag reduction was impossible to refute: the test aircraft had never posted a course speed over 297 mph, and now clocked consistant 309 to 311 with not even a piston ring change between years. Applying this to other air racers and kit aircraft seemed to be a forgone conclusion and a modest business could have followed. It was not to be.
First, I was involved with a marginal engine builder who oversold his product and himself. Tarnished by this, the owner of NuVenture loudly proclaimed to everyone who asked that my modifications were not of any value. (He used stronger language than that, but we need to respect decorum here) I have news for any doubters: most teams would kill for 12 to 14 mph; I did it with less than 5 lb of fiberglass.
Second, I did not care about aesthetics. A polished DNF is still a DNF. The ugliest winner still goes home with the trophy girl. The fairings I produced were a little rough, however the flanges and surface finish did not matter within the areas of the boundary layers we were operating in. I am a racer. I have raced motorcycles, karts, hydroplanes, and with this project, airplanes. For the first three, I was the driver. I have NEVER seen a pretty paint job or a coat of wax do anything but cause me to slide ignominiously off the bodywork. In the case of the Venture fairings, I specifically told the customer NOT to fillet the gaps and corners as this would cause an increase in pressure recovery with an attendant increase in drag.
Lo and behold, the next year the aircraft shows up with a fancy paint job and fillets in all the corners. The owner comes to me with a hang dog expression and asks what he can do to get back the 3 mph the fancy paint and bondo has cost him. With absolutely NO sypathy, I told him to rip the bondo out of the corners. Dismayed at the prospect of messing up a paint job that cost him double what he spent on my modifications, he refused. He did state that he was having a new Legacy built and would call me for drag reduction on that as well. Since I had proven that I knew what I was doing as far as drag reduction went in areas that no one else in the air racing world understood, I expected that I would be assured of the new business. The test aircraft was later sold to another racer who encountered an SIO (system induced osscilation) in wake turbulance and crashed. Every pilot in the class agrees that the modifications did not affect the aircraft with respect to the accident. However, the publicity could hardly be called positive.
Third strike. The owner took his Legacy kit to a bondo shop that does pro-building for owners who don't want to do it themselves. This is the dark side of the experimental "amateur-built" business. The owner then gave all of my research (he was provided with a report as part of the program) to the shop and PAID THEM to duplicate it. Tuft tests were performed copying my earlier work and fairings were made with a poor interpretation of my work. Three Legacys and one Glassair have now flown at Reno with modifications that came from an unethical (but not illegal) transfer of my intellectual property. Kits of these modifications are now on the market.
It is my own darned fault that I did not get a non-disclosure with my customer when we did the original work. It is small consolation that the person copying the work has done so in a sub-optimum fashion, resulting in only 50 to 70% of the drag reduction possible. However, this is enough that it is unlikely that anyone can compete since the additional gain from optimum modifications is only 2 to 3 mph.
My ethical question is this: I am more than a little furious at the theft and misuse of my intellectual property and of someone claiming credit for my work (albeit poorly interpreted). Worse than that is the loss to an unqualified competitor of what I believe should have been my business. Should I:
a) Suffer in silence while someone else makes a living off of the modifications I brought to air racing?
b) Publish an article in Kitplanes and/or AAFO explaining the technology, how to do it, and how the pretenders have not quite gotten it right?
c) Attempt to compete with the deficit of being late to market and undercapitalized because my competition has been subsidized by a former customer?
d) Something else? (suggestions please)
I apologize for the anger expressed here. However, I will never work for anyone again without non-disclosure in place and I acknowledge that this whole situation exists because I let some of my intellectual property go without properly protecting it.
Eric Ahlstrom
, aside from the fact that the patent process is at minimum a five-figure project. My company has a patent pending, and it ain't cheap. I think you'll want to compete on reputation, service and results. Peas
.
Any good ideas on making my Mustang faster, while keeping it essentially stock? I gotta surprise my Mustang friends! On the QT, of course!! Thx.)
Comment