Some of the modifications are classified, but in general terms the mods are like this. Inside the hull local area's that are dominant in determining the amount of flexing have been reinforced. Other reinforcements increasingly prevent the hulls from being strain out out shape and as such increase the net stiffness. A new crossection for the beams is used. But indeed most of the improvements come from very modest but smartly applied local reinforcements in the hulls.

I can't name any actually measurement data or other specifics, because I agreed to not do that. I can say however that the new 2007 Blade is stiffer then the 2006 version which was already stiffer then the 2005 version which was significantly stiffer then the Taipan.

When comparing my own Taipan based F16 (which is slightly stiffer then the standard Taipan) to the new Blade I can say that the new Blade is no less then 4.33 times stiffer. (based on actual measured data). So a factor of 4 and that is ALOT. Phill as a designer was aiming for a factor of 3, but it came out at the above named ratio. So the designers sort of overdid it, not that anyone is complaining, mind you. Again I say that the Blade 2005 version was already significantly more stiff then my Taipan F16. So the difference between different makes of Blades is less overwhelming. Although the first versions of the Blades were less stiff then the Stealth F16's, so to some extend the Blades had to catch up.

More interestingly I think is the fact that at the same time of these increases in stiffness the platform weight has been reduced. And this clearly hints at how smart the reinforcements have been placed. Measurements of the last series of hulls is now typically below 23 kg. Note that the smaller and significantly less bouyant Taipan hulls are 23.5 kg each.

Currently the VWM Blade F16 is lighter, stiffer, wider and more volumous and cheaper then the Taipan design that basically was the best F16 at the start of the class back in 2001. Personally I think it is also significantly better behaved then the Taipan and probably a little faster as well. This total improvement of the basic design on all fronts is something that the group of associated designers really didn't believe to be possible. But as a result of combined efforts it has been achieved nevertheless. To me it is one of the most convincing argument for a formula setup and against an One-design class. A better product for roughly 20 % less cost. I'm personally more then willing to accept the 1 or 2 % speed improvement of the Blade with respect to the Taipan for the ability to carry much heavier crews with a much better feel and a more predictable behaviour for significantly less cost when bought new. In a few years I'll sell my Taipan F16 (that I really do love) to a newby to the F16 class and buy myself an new F16. The price is not prohibitive and the newby will need many years of training before being held back in a competitive sense by the slighly lower speeds of the Taipan.

Which design it will be dependents on who builds the best F16 at that time to my personal liking. Seems to me that Stealth and others are full on designwise as well. And I'll be fully investigating the new AHPC Viper F16 that they'll bring to the Zandvoort event.

I've gotten a little bit of track, but I'm sure you'll forgive in this instance.

Wouter