Computational wing optimization and comparisons with experiment for a semi-span wing model

A computational wing optimization procedure was developed and verified by an experimental investigation of a semi-span variable camber wing model in the NASA Ames Research Center 14 foot transonic wind tunnel. The Bailey-Ballhaus transonic potential flow analysis and Woodward-Carmichael linear theory codes were linked to Vanderplaats constrained minimization routine to optimize model configurations at several subsonic and transonic design points. The 35 deg swept wing is characterized by multi-segmented leading and trailing edge flaps whose hinge lines are swept relative to the leading and trailing edges of the wing. By varying deflection angles of the flap segments, camber and twist distribution can be optimized for different design conditions. Results indicate that numerical optimization can be both an effective and efficient design tool. The optimized configurations had as good or better lift to drag ratios at the design points as the best designs previously tested during an extensive parametric study

Reforming the Law of Gratuitous Transfers: The New Uniform Probate Code

In the mid-1980s the Uniform Law Commission undertook a landmark revision of the American law of gratuitous transfers. These reforms culminated in a drastically revised Uniform Probate Code ( UPC ). The revisions inspired the Albany Law Review to organize this symposium issue for the purpose of examining the 1990 UPC. In this introductory paper, we point to the main themes of the reform movement, discuss some of the traits and constraints of the uniform law process, and comment on some of the suggestions and insights that appear in the symposium articles

Correcting the Record Regarding the Restatement of Property\u27s Slayer Rule

In 2014, the Brooklyn Law Review published a symposium issue on Restatements of the Law. The organizer of the symposium, Professor Anita Bernstein, did not afford an opportunity for Restatement reporters to comment on the articles. The organizer did invite the Director of the American Law Institute, Lance Liebman, to contribute an essay commenting on the symposium as a whole. Liebman\u27s essay-unintentionally no doubt-misstated the position that we took in formulating the slayer rule for the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers. Liebman\u27s misstatement-that we recommended that the Institute adopt a rule allowing a murderer to inherit from his or her victim-needs to be corrected

Redesigning the Spouse\u27s Forced Share: A Proposal

The following article is adapted from Langbein and Waggoner, Redesigning the Spouse\u27s Forced Share, 22 Real Property, Probate & Trust Journal 303 (1987). The Joint Editorial Board for the Uniform Probate Code recently accepted in principle the idea for redesigning the elective share presented in that article. Legislative language incorporating the authors\u27 proposals has been approved by the Joint Editorial Board and will soon be submitted to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws for official inclusion in the Uniform Probate Code

Correcting the Record Regarding theRestatement of Property’s Slayer Rulein the Brooklyn Law Review’sSymposium Issue on Restatements

In 2014, the Brooklyn Law Review published a symposium issue on Restatements of the Law. The organizer of the symposium, Professor Anita Bernstein, did not afford an opportunity for Restatement reporters to comment on the articles. The organizer did invite the Director of the American Law Institute, Lance Liebman, to contribute an essay commenting on the symposium as a whole. Liebman’s essay—unintentionally no doubt—misstated the position that we took in formulating the slayer rule for the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers. Liebman’s misstatement—that we recommended that the Institute adopt a rule allowing a murderer to inherit from his or her victim—needs to be corrected

The Emergence of a General Reformation Doctrine for Wills

Although it has been axiomatic that our courts do not entertain suits to reform wills on the ground of mistake, appellate courts in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and California have decided cases within the last several years that may presage the abandonment of the ancient no-reformation rule. (In re Snide, 52 N.Y.2d 193, 418 N.E.2d 656, 437 N.Y.S.2d 63 (1981); Estate of Kremlick, 331 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. 1983); Engle v. Siegel, 74 N.J. 287, 377 A.2d 892 (1977); and Estate of Taff, 63 Cal. App. 3d 319, 133 Cal.Rptr. 737 (1976).) The new cases do not purport to make this fundamental doctrinal change, although the New York court did announce an explicit exception to the noreformation rule and the other three courts did disclaim a related rule, sometimes called the plain meaning rule. That rule, which we will be calling the no-extrinsic-evidence rule, prescribes that courts not receive evidence about the testator\u27s intent apart from, or in opposition to, the legal effect of the language he uses in the will itself. The three courts said that they were consulting extrinsic evidence (in the California and New Jersey cases, primarily the testimony of the lawyers whose poor draftsmanship had led to the litigation) in order to engage in construction of supposedly ambiguous instruments. In this article, which both summarizes and updates an extensively footnoted article published last year ( Reformation of Wills on the Ground of Mistake: Change of Direction in American Law? 130 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 521 (1982)), we report on this new case law and discuss the analytic framework that we think it suggests and requires

Reformation of Wills on the Ground of Mistake: Change of Direction in American Law?

Although it has been axiomatic that our courts do not entertain suits to reform wills on the ground of mistake, appellate courts in California, New Jersey, and New York have decided cases within the last five years that may presage the abandonment of the ancient no-reformation rule. The new cases do not purport to make this fundamental doctrinal change, although the California Court of Appeal in Estate of Taff and the New Jersey Supreme Court in Engle v. Siegel did expressly disclaim a related rule, sometimes called the plain meaning rule. That rule, which hereafter we will call the no-extrinsic-evidence rule, prescribes that courts not receive evidence about the testator\u27s intent apart from, in addition to, or in opposition to the legal effect of the language which is used by him in the will itself. The two courts said that they were consulting extrinsic evidence (primarily the testimony of the lawyers whose poor draftsmanship had led to the litigation) in order to engage in construction of supposedly ambiguous instruments. In truth, each of the two wills was utterly unambiguous. What each court actually did was to prefer the extrinsic evidence of the testator\u27s intent over the contrary but mistaken language in the will

Perpetual Trusts: The Walking Dead and Congress Should Effectively Curb GST Exemption for Perpetual Trusts.

In separate but complementary letters to the editor of Tax Notes, Calvin Johnson (University of Texas School of Law) and Lawrence Waggoner (University of Michigan Law School) respond to an article by Dennis Belcher and seven other practicing attorneys that defend the GST exemption for perpetual trusts. In Federal Tax Rules Should Not Be Used to Limit Trust Duration, 126 Tax Notes 832 (Aug 13, 2012), the attorneys argue that the duration of a trust is a state law issue. Their article is actually a response to a Shelf Project article: Lawrence W. Waggoner, Effectively Curbing the GST Exemption for Perpetual Trusts, 125 Tax Notes 1267 (June 4, 2012), Doc 2012-9442, 2012 (TNT 110-14, available electronically at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083804). In Perpetual Trusts: The Walking Dead, 126 Tax Notes 1215 (Sept. 3, 2012), Johnson argues that the harm to the national wealth done by perpetual trusts is a federal responsibility. Trusts reduce the value of wealth, and settlors could figure that out if they were not seduced by the tax exemption. Specific settlor instructions get out of date and become an impediment after a generation. Delegating to trustees accountable to no one means trusts are managed primarily for the benefit of the trustees. Perpetual trusts become monsters, the walking dead. The federal exemption is motivating the harm; federal law is responsible for the harm that perpetual trusts cause. In Congress Should Effectively Curb the GST Exemption for Perpetual Trusts, 126 Tax Notes 1216 (Sept. 3, 2012), Waggoner reaffirms his Shelf Project proposal and his criticism of the Treasury Department’s proposal for dealing with perpetual trusts. The Treasury Department’s proposal would leave many trusts and much wealth GST exempt for much longer than Congress originally intended. The Waggoner proposal, if enacted, would be much more effective. Belcher and the other attorneys argue that Congress should do nothing (a position refuted by Johnson), but if Congress is to do something, the attorneys essentially embrace the Treasury proposal

Correcting the Record Regarding theRestatement of Property’s Slayer Rulein the Brooklyn Law Review’sSymposium Issue on Restatements

In 2014, the Brooklyn Law Review published a symposium issue on Restatements of the Law. The organizer of the symposium, Professor Anita Bernstein, did not afford an opportunity for Restatement reporters to comment on the articles. The organizer did invite the Director of the American Law Institute, Lance Liebman, to contribute an essay commenting on the symposium as a whole. Liebman’s essay—unintentionally no doubt—misstated the position that we took in formulating the slayer rule for the Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers. Liebman’s misstatement—that we recommended that the Institute adopt a rule allowing a murderer to inherit from his or her victim—needs to be corrected