Page 1 of 1

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 8:12 pm
by art
Read this on the Falcon East site:
"WHO DESIGNED, MADE THEM, AND HOW MANY, AND WHEN ?"

"Designed by Romuald Drlik, designer of the Eagle, the Lazair, the Falcon canards and long list of other inventions"

http://www.aerofalcon.com/faq_falcon.htm

Anyone know about it? Art

PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:46 pm
by Guest
That incorrect information. Romuald had nothing to do with the Lazair. Peter Corley did help design the Falcon wing however. Peter was not all that impressed with the Falcon regardless. To quote him directly he said "it isn't a Lazair".

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 8:25 am
by art
Falconeast responds:

In a message dated 5/12/2005 10:16:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, amancini@suscom.net writes:
Designed by Romuald Drlik, designer of the Eagle, the Lazair, the Falcon canards and long list of other inventions"I read this in faq's. I thought Dale Kramer designed Lazair. Can you explain. Art

Art,
you are definitely correct. This error came into my files from " unnamed sources" and I will use the occasion to make the correction. Thanks for pointing it out,

Mike

PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:20 am
by xgary
art, if i recall correctly the lazair came from kramer and corley After they say the super floater at oshkosh in the 70s

the super floater was designed by Klaus hill I believe.


Cliff whitney did a short movie on it ...


Cliff Whitney go to Photo gallery then Movies ---Super floater

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2005 11:44 pm
by Chappy
Short, you are correct.

When Peter Corley went to California to make his fortune selling Lazairs, he was aware of Dale Kramer's plans for a redesign of the Lazair wing. When Peter was offered a position by Larry Newman with American Aerolights to help design a replacement for the Eagle, he offered up some of that new design. The long tubular drag brace that runs through the Falcon's wing was to be incorporated in the updated Lazair wing in place of the complicated box structure at the root. Dale was so pissed off he decided not to change the Lazair wing because he believed he would be accused of copying the Falcon's wing design!

One thing they did that was smart on the Falcon wing was to really beef up the attachment fittings. It was a very smart marketing move. Peter, along with others involved with the Lazair for any time, had been told by prospective customers that the fittings just looked too light and weak. I think if you study old Falcon sales literature, you will see mention of the fact that the Falcon was built very strong and had heavier structural components than most of it's competitors.

Chappy

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2005 10:12 pm
by Guest
Yeah, well the Lazair lives on. Where's the large following behind the Falcon ??? Lazairs are still flying 50:1 to the Falcon.

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 12:50 am
by Chappy
It seems there are basically two types of companies. One will develop a very good product but have poor marketing and miss out on lots of potential sales, and the other have a poor or marginal product, yet be so marketing driven that it succeeds anyway - at least for a while. The company that can do both, develop great products and figure out how to really sell them, that's the rarest kind.

Ultraflight's advertised performance claims are a case in point. They were so conservative, especially compared with most other UL manufactures, that it just had to cost them lots of lost Lazair sales. (A case in point: Find an ad for the Rotec Rally 2B. The advertised performance figures were quite good for the day. Too bad the thing, as originally designed, could barely get out of ground affect! It wasn't until the wing was redesigned that it had any climb. By that time, it had been on the market for a year or more. Rotec was a fairly well selling UL for a while).

Obviously, AA was more a marketing driven company. At least with the Falcon, they had a safe design, more than could be said for the Eagle.

The Lazair was really a rather unique design for an ultralight in its day. The average Joe rarely purchased one, though, as the construction methods and appearance made it look so much more complicated and difficult to build compared to rag and tube ULs of the period. Many people that have seen me flying over the years have gotten very excited about Lazairs and ultralighting, yet if they actually followed through and got their own ultralight, it was almost always a Quick or Rotec or Weedhopper type of machine. As a Lazair enthusiast and dealer, this was hard for me to take.

Maybe part of the lasting appeal of the Lazair isn't just the great design, but the challenge it presents to builder's and owner's of getting and keeping it flying - now more than ever.

JMHO, Chappy

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2005 6:02 pm
by lazairiii
Chappy,

Well put! It is a challenge to keep these planes in the air isn't it. This is why some of us that have build Lazair's are putting so much effort into learning how to bend tubes, make some specific parts, do engine work ourselves and procure specific items to keep these planes going for a long long time.

I for one am paying attention to good quality information since there is plenty of it out there to be had. It's called reciprocation. You help me and I'll help you. It works and we all benifit...well the ones willing to participate that is.

Lets keep them flying...
George C.