Dumb Canard Question.

In article , Russell Kent wrote:

While the obvious differences in density and
Reynolds
numbers makes comparing airfoils to hydrofoils dubious, it isn't obvious to me
that
comparisons of "ended-ness" are invalid. Can anyone explain why?


I have read a few books on boat design. The only author
that said anything about front versus rear propellers
thought that a front mounted propeller would be slightly
more efficient. He then stated that he would never put one
on the front of a boat because accidental groundings and
collisions with debris floating in the water at or just
below the surface would damage or destroy a front mounted
propeller. A rear propeller is protected by the bulk of the
boat as it moves through the water.

I doubt that any aircraft designer feels a need to concern
himself with debris in the path of a flying airplane.

1¾
************************************************** *
The reply e-dress is a dead end.
If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal

(Scott McQueen) wrote in message ...
In article , Russell Kent wrote:

While the obvious differences in density and
Reynolds
numbers makes comparing airfoils to hydrofoils dubious, it isn't obvious to me
that
comparisons of "ended-ness" are invalid. Can anyone explain why?


I have read a few books on boat design. The only author
that said anything about front versus rear propellers
thought that a front mounted propeller would be slightly
more efficient. He then stated that he would never put one
on the front of a boat because accidental groundings and
collisions with debris floating in the water at or just
below the surface would damage or destroy a front mounted
propeller. A rear propeller is protected by the bulk of the
boat as it moves through the water.

I doubt that any aircraft designer feels a need to concern
himself with debris in the path of a flying airplane.

1¾
************************************************** *
The reply e-dress is a dead end.
If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

Unless you're the guy that designed the Space Shuttle.

Neal

(Neal Fulco) wrote:

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal
++++++++++++++++++++++

Troublemaker.



Barnyard BOb --

Neal Fulco wrote:

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

It's only an issue if you don't have the plane tied down. Use a nose tie
down and you don't have to park it with the nose on the ground.

Russell Kent

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
(Neal Fulco) wrote:

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal
++++++++++++++++++++++

Troublemaker.



Barnyard BOb --



Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks

Neal

"Neal Fulco" wrote in message
om...
Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal

Neal,
The Velocity's have quite a bit more weight on the nose gear that the
typical EZ's do. The Velocity's are able to get away with this because they
have much larger canards (relative to the wing area) and slotted elevators
(like fowler flaps) which allow them to rotate at a reasonable speed. They
do have considerable runway runs, like all canards do, both take off and
landing.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.belleairetours.com

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal
++++++++++++++++++++++

Troublemaker.



Barnyard BOb --



Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks

Neal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure do, and....
I hope you understand my tongue in cheek
remark without me putting a smiley on it. g


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal
++++++++++++++++++++++

Troublemaker.



Barnyard BOb --



Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks

Neal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure do, and....
I hope you understand my tongue in cheek
remark without me putting a smiley on it. g


Barnyard BOb --

I understood. Sometimes I come up with a " I wonder if this would
work " idea and I find the RAH group a good sounding board. I even
got a great physics lesson from a fellow poster the other day
regarding the construction of a wing spar. Great stuff..............

Neal

To keep them from tipping over backwards when no one is in them.