TerraBreak.org: An independent Design/Build/Fly (DBF) support site

Wow, another year. . . another DBF competition. Frankly, at times I had to pinch myself; since when I mentioned this whole scheme to Mike I was half kidding. Of course, that's kinda how I got involved with DBF in the first place. I'm still finding out how deep this rabbit hole goes; but that's another story for another time.

The 2003-2004 Cessna/ONR/AIAA Design/Build/Fly Competition was the inaugural year of TerraBreak.org's "participation" in the event. This is amazing in itself, since the site was launched less than two months before the first day of competition. We've learned a lot, and are still coming up with ideas to do things better next year. One of those areas is increased Terrabreak.org volunteer turn out. Mike and I have to say thank you to Beverly Beasley, Chris Emory, and Joseph for helping us collect data. We also must thank the 2003-2004 Virginia Tech team Turbulence Syndrome, who hosted our efforts, by providing hotel space. Of course, being alums of Virginia Tech helped us out in that department. That's not to say you have to be a Hokie to support TerraBreak.org. If you're a recent graduate and couldn't get enough of this DBF stuff, like Mike and I, we'd love to have you aboard.

I have to tip my hat off to Oklahoma State University, they really pulled into Wichita with their proverbial *stuff* together. They proved the adage that "if it looks good, it'll fly good." There combination of low RAC, high report score, reliability, conventionalism, sturdiness, speed, stability, and pilotage propelled them to the front spots. With four grand bulging from their pockets, there's no doubt they'll be a force to be reckoned with again next year. But, then again, aren't they such a force every year!?

On the flip side of the quarter I have to tip my other hat to three other teams. Specifically, UIUC, UT Arlington, WVU Stingray. These three aircraft were the most conceptually innovative of those ones I saw at competition. With the limited amount of data we've collected so far, I cannot say unequivocally, but I believe that UIUC and UTA had the first use of sailplane gear in the competition. I applaud their bold stab in a new direction, and applaud their pilots' skill in handling this configuration in the unforgiving Kansas crosswinds. The WVU Stingray was one of the most interesting aircraft on the flight line, since they used their tank to form a channel wing. This was perhaps the most daring design innovation implemented. Unfortunately, that tends to lead to difficulty at competition, which they certainly experienced. However, they deserve congratulations that they were able to get such a radical aircraft to competition. The WVU Right Flyer also deserves some applause, albeit quiet applause… I think their pilot is still trying to calm his nerves. Their flying wing dumbfounded many participants, who'd seen flying wings fail in the past (none quite as much as this author). This flying wing was particularly special because it solely relied on mixed ailerons-elevators, and was barren of any static-directional stability surfaces.

Whadayaknow, I have a final hat to tip. This one goes out to Virginia Tech and La Sapienza - Galileo V. These two teams exemplified the "never say die" attitude that I love to see in teams. They both recovered from nasty wrecks early Sunday, and came back to the flight line to attempt one last flight.

All the teams deserve a round of applause for even showing up, which is an ordeal in itself. Way to go teams! You should be proud of your efforts!

By our calculations, next year's rules should be up in another month to month and a half. We look forward to seeing the challenge for next year, and hope that this information will help you to surmount that challenge decisively!