Question - Regarding Canard Pushers...

"Kevin Horton" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:22:46 +0000, Tilt wrote:

We
would like the craft to have some light aerobatics abilities. Nothing
real heavy...none of us wants to go off and join the Air Show.

Cheers,
Lyle


Lyle,

If you also want to fly some aerobatics, I don't think you should
belooking at a canard. A properly designed, built and loaded
canardaircraft does have stall protection if the stall is approached
gentlyenough. But, if you have a very dynamic entry to the stall (e.g.
verynose high at low speed) you might stall the main wing. If the main
wingever stalls you will quite likely enter an unrecoverable deep stall.

I would not risk doing aerobatics in a canard aircraft. You might getaway
with it for awhile, but if you ever screw up and stall the main wing,you
have to bail out. With a conventional aircraft, you just centralizethe
controls and wait until the aircraft enters a recognizable attitude,or
recover from the spin.

I recall a canard that was lost on a test flight up here in Canada when
the test pilot tried some aerobatics.

See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ews.ionsys.com

This one is also interesting:

http://www.canard.com/ntsb/LAX/95A289.htm

There were quite a few Velocity accidents due to stalls in the early days.
They made changes, and I think the issue is gone, but it highlights how
bad a cliff edge there can be with stalls in canards.

http://www.canard.com/ntsb/MIA/88A203.htm
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/MIA/93A011.htm
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/MIA/89A087.htm
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/MIA/89A117.htm

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/LAX/95A289.htm

I won't dispute that there have been some accidents in canard airplanes
during aerobatic flight. I am confident that I could find an equal number
of accidents that happened during aerobatic flight in most any other make
and model, high-performance homebuilt. Flown properly, aerobatics can be
done in canard airplanes. They are very low drag airplanes and great care
should be exercised in the vertical mode. I have done most any "fun" type
manuvers you can name in a veri-eze and a long-ez. I have rolled a velocity
a couple of times. They are all delightful flying airplanes.

That said, the velocity is not really suited for that as much as it is
touring. I don't have any experience with the SQ-2000 except close
examination of the prototype on the ground. The wing area seems a little
small for the load it is said to carry.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.belleairetours.com

Bob

I'm really having trouble with my reasoning about going to Elec. Ign. I
might save 5% on fuel. I have about 600 hrs on Mags and Plugs without any
trouble. "So if it ain't broke don't fix it" starts to make sense.
By the way...I have 600 hrs on Smith plugs. They are Iridium and work fine.
No fouling. A "Champion plug guy" at OSHkosh said that they haven't made
those plugs in 20 yrs. The Unison guys never heard of Smith. Heck...they may
last to TBO!!

Steve


I hope you do spring for the electronic ignition.
Perhaps you will report back that you are saving so much in
fuel and spark plugs that you opened a service station and
retired early from all the fuel you saved and sold to the thick
headed magneto lovers like me.

In the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy BOTH my current....
and future set of Slicks and add another 50 years of dinosaur
flight to my logbook.


Barnyard BOb -- if it ain't broke why fix it at twice the price?

BOb

'I'm' not doing any picking. My Mark 20C (1962) didn't have a wing
leveler (came out a year or two later) so had to fly the bird all the
time like in a fighter. Was hard to fly with knees with the control
wheel(s) it had.

Was so light on controls, if I dropped something on floor (pencil) and
bent over to pick up, would end up almost on my back before I knew it.
Stick would have made all the difference in the world.

Bird was still a joy for old retired Fighter Pilot to fly.


Big John



On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:17:41 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:



I got lots of hours holding sticks between my knees too. I would prefer a
centre stick too. But a properly built and rigged canard should be able
to keep right side up once you've got it trimmed, I would have thought.
So you should be able to release the stick for short periods if you really
need both hands.

Big John
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why are you picking on the early model Mooney's? g


Barnyard BOb --

BOb

My bird was a '62 (second year they made all metal). Never heard of
any Mooney flying like a truck??? Who, what , where, when???

Big John



On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 06:29:50 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


If you make the bird so inherently stable that it will
fly hands off, then it will fly like a truck and be no fun to fly at
all. Two hands to make a turn, etc.

Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Let's try this again}

Why are you picking on the early model Mooney's.




Barnyard BOb -- why am I doing this?

BOb

The Taylor Cub I flew had single ignition. Whats the big deal about
single ignition?

Big John


On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 05:42:30 -0500, Barnyard BOb --
wrote:


I have 500+ hours in a Q-200 (center stick) and am currently flying a
Glasair II (stick between the legs).
The position of the stick isn't an issue for me.At one time I thought it
was. I fly the Glasair left handed and am quite comfortable with it.
So many other things are issues!!! But certainly not the position of the
stick. The issues come and go as these machines are evolving, Issue at hand
is change both mags and harness or go with single electronic ignition.
It's always something!!!

Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Stick, yoke, or whatever have been non issues
over the last 50 years of flying for me, but......
SINGLE electronic ignition scares the bejeezus
out of me.

What is your rationale, besides money?
Have you taken leave of your senses? g


Barnyard BOb -- 50 years of flight

The standard configuration for the SQ 2000 is dual center joysticks.
Paul Lee wanted yokes and so has departed from the design in that regard.

JJF

Tilt wrote:
I'm seeing this may be the case. We arn't getting real serious yet, but I
want to start researching this info now. My friends and I would certainly
prefer a stick between the knees. My fighter friend has flown this way since
the start of his flying career. I myself like that arrangment too. Maybe we
need to look at other homebuilt designs. We would like the craft to have
some light aerobatics abilities. Nothing real heavy...none of us wants to go
off and join the Air Show.

I did find a web site of a dude building an SQ-2000 canard pusher. His
cockpit was set up with 2 yokes. This leads me to think it wouldn't be hard
to set up a center (between the knees) stick.

Any SQ-2000 owners out there want to enlighten me?

Cheers,
Lyle



You might want to wrangle a flight in a canard with a side stick before
you write off the concept. It does work reasonably well, at least on
the Gyroflug Speed Canard that I flew.

4 seat canards are not the sort of aircraft you do aerobatics in, so you
don't need the leverage that a long centre stick gives you.

I got lots of hours holding sticks between my knees too. I would prefer a
centre stick too. But a properly built and rigged canard should be able
to keep right side up once you've got it trimmed, I would have thought.
So you should be able to release the stick for short periods if you really
need both hands.

I'm not aware of any four place canards with centre sticks. I suspect it
would be a very large job to cobble a centre stick onto one of the four
place canard designs. You would need quite a few bell cranks, etc, and
the number of pivots could lead to excessive friction, if you weren't real
careful with the design and construction.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:21:47 -0500, Rick Pellicciotti wrote:

I won't dispute that there have been some accidents in canard airplanes
during aerobatic flight. I am confident that I could find an equal
number of accidents that happened during aerobatic flight in most any
other make and model, high-performance homebuilt. Flown properly,
aerobatics can be done in canard airplanes. They are very low drag
airplanes and great care should be exercised in the vertical mode. I
have done most any "fun" type manuvers you can name in a veri-eze and a
long-ez. I have rolled a velocity a couple of times. They are all
delightful flying airplanes.

That said, the velocity is not really suited for that as much as it is
touring. I don't have any experience with the SQ-2000 except close
examination of the prototype on the ground. The wing area seems a
little small for the load it is said to carry.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.belleairetours.com

Sure, guys have accidents for all kinds of reasons during aerobatic
flights. Mess up in a loop or roll at low altitude, and that will get you
no matter what aircraft you are flying. Or get in a spin at too low an
altitude and you are toast. But a good aerobatic aircraft should not have
an unrecoverable stall or spin characteristic. So you can do aerobatics
safely if you fly at a high enough altitude to recover from a spin.

My concern about doing aerobatics in canards is that you quite likely have
an unrecoverable deep stall mode lurking to bite you, if you ever manage
to stall the main wing, so you have added one more way to kill yourself,
even if you fly at "safe" altitude. And that isn't even mentioning the
issue of low drag which you alluded to. You really, really need to watch
what you are doing any time you put the nose very far below the horizon in
something as slick as most canard designs.

Rolls don't concern me too much, as they don't need to involve large pitch
attitudes, or high angles of attack. The thought of someone building a
canard to go out and do vertical type manoeuvres with scares the heck out
of me though.

Good luck, and fly safe.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/

Kevin Horton wrote:

Rolls don't concern me too much, as they don't need to involve large pitch
attitudes, or high angles of attack. The thought of someone building a
canard to go out and do vertical type manoeuvres with scares the heck out
of me though.

Perhaps Dick Rutan did a disservice in the early EZ days by flying
demos that included vertical loops. His routine sold plenty of plans
though. As a Long EZ flyer, I agree that the EZ and its variants are
definitely not aerobatic mounts. Even rolls in an EZ could bite the
inexperienced pilot because the roll rate is inherently slow and the
plane is so clean. A reasonably high entry speed is a must and full
rudder deflection in the direction of the roll will get the plane over
much quicker. As for loops in an EZ, don't even think about it unless
you have oodles of aerobatic experience and have talked to someone
like Dick Rutan about it first.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

BOb

My bird was a '62 (second year they made all metal). Never heard of
any Mooney flying like a truck??? Who, what , where, when???

Big John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whoa, big fella.

The early Mooney's I flew way back, had very high aileron forces.
I absolutely HATED flying Mooney's because of this fact.
The CURVED ailerons of the day caused this nasty business.
The later model STRAIGHT bottom ailerons cure this ill.

As reference to this, I offer.....
http://www.mooneypilots.com/m20E.html

"The good news is that the later model ailerons can be retrofitted to
the pre'65 model Mooneys. They are expensive ($800 from the salvage
yard, $1500 from Mooney) but they make a dramatic improvement in
reducing roll forces. Incidently, this aileron change is required if
retrofitting a PC system or an autopilot to a pre'65 model Mooney."


Barnyard BOb - 50 years of flight

BOb

The Taylor Cub I flew had single ignition. Whats the big deal about
single ignition?

Big John
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Redundency....
or lack of it.


Barnyard BOb --