("Dick Meade" wrote)
E-mail me for some info on 182 vs 260 SE. Your e-mail bounces.

Check out the 260se 182.... anybody comment on the negatives of this
mod?
price/performance/ comparably priced different aircraft?

http://www.260se.com/features.html


Dick, Please post the info here too. I am curious about the 260SE (canard)
182 Peterson conversion.

Here's a 260SE canard question:

High wing Cessna 182.
Canard conversion wing is set up "inches" from the prop. :-)
How does that darn canard work?

I (somewhat) understand a Burt Rutan design - smaller area canard, losses
lift before the larger aft wing, nose drops first, etc.

On this 260SE (Cessna 182) design, doesn't the prop wash do nutty things to
the air over that (very close) canard wing?

Wouldn't the prop'd air, moving over this small canard wing, fool the canard
into thinking it's flying at (maybe) 65k, while the large high wings on a
182 (mostly out of the prop wash) are actually only in the 55k range?

(I just pulled some numbers out of the air)

If the forward canard on the (Cessna 182) 260SE is for extra lift only, then
I guess that Rutan stuff doesn't apply to this design - nose stalls (and
drops) first, etc.

Web page does use this phrase: "stall-resistant attitude"

[Just reread my post]
Maybe the canard wing gets extra lift by being close to the prop. Maybe it
is *supposed* to get extra lift from its placement near the prop. Maybe it's
ALL about extra lift, and nothing about anti-stall. Hmm??]

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif