Rethinking the Paper Helicopter

Abstract

Box's paper helicopter has been used to teach experimental design for more than a decade. It is simple, inexpensive, and provides real data for an involved, multifactor experiment. Unfortunately it can also further an all-too-common practice that Professor Box himself has repeatedly cautioned against, namely ignoring the fundamental science while rushing to solve problems that may not be sufficiently understood. Often this slighting of the science so as to get on with the statistics is justified by referring to Box's oft-quoted maxim that “All models are wrong, however some are useful.” Nevertheless, what is equally true, to paraphrase both Professor Box and George Orwell, is that “All models are wrong, but some are more wrong than others.” To experiment effectively it is necessary to understand the relevant science so as to distinguish between what is usefully wrong, and what is dangerously wrong.This article presents an improved analysis of Box's helicopter problem relying on statistical and engineering knowledge and shows that this leads to an enhanced paper helicopter, requiring fewer experimental trails and achieving superior performance. In fact, of the 20 experimental trials run for validation—10 each of the proposed aerodynamic design and the conventional full factorial optimum—the longest 10 flight times all belong to the aerodynamic optimum, while the shortest 10 all belong to the conventional full factorial optimum. I further discuss how ancillary engineering knowledge can be incorporated into thinking about—and teaching—experimental design.