"Montblack" wrote in message
...

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

Detailed questions about canards snipped

Sorry if I mislead you, Montblack. I'm no expert on this conversion. My
info is based on observations of a 260 SE based at my local airport, and a
comparison of that plane to my 182 with a Pponk conversion (520 cu. in, 260
hp), flap and aileron gap seals, and mild droop tips. .

The Peterson conversion is expensive. The aerodynamic clean-ups seem to be
offset by the increased drag of the canard, as there is virtually no
difference in speeds between the planes. Relative climb rates are tough to
quantify, but gut feeling says they are pretty similar. I can peg the VSI
on climb out without doing anything heroic. The 260 may have an edge on
stall speed; I'm not certain. Mine stalls somewhere below 45 mph indicated,
no doubt helped by the gap seals. I can't speak to any change in the 'feel'
of the plane, as I haven't flown the 260.

The canard adds complexity under the cowl. To clarify, I should mention
that the canard is not stationary, it moves in concert with the elevators.
Thus, more pushrods, bellcranks, bearings, etc. I imagine rigging is also
somewhat more complicated. The airflow over the canard (I guess) gives the
plane a unique sound as it goes overhead, lending credence to your thought
about the airflow doing "nutty things".

My plane was (re)built to operate from short fields in Montana, although it
is far from Montana now. That's pretty much the mission of the 260 SE.
It's just 2 different ways to approach the same problem. Supporters from
both camps are almost religious (sorry Jay) in their support of the "best"
solution. Maybe slightly more so for the Petersonites. Both are
improvements to an already very capable aircraft, but the Pponk is
considerably less expensive.

Dick