Dumb Canard Question.

Big John wrote:

See the step but don't remember ever seeing on the original
plan/birds????? which I looked at years ago for possibility of
building. May have missed that minor detail.

The step on my Long EZ is per plans. I don't know what kind of step
the Varieze plans called for, if any. Maybe someone with a Varieze
could chime in. I'd like to know.

The EZ had a carnard/rain problem. Is that fixed now or do you have to
fly around the problem?

Well, it's not fixed on my airplane. If I want to fix it, I have to
build a new canard. The effect can be trimmed out. Variable rain
requires frequent re-trimming, of course. I largely avoid flying in
the rain because of my wood prop. Interestingly, the canard will let
me know it's raining even when the rain is so light that I can't see
it. It's my drizzle/virga detection system. g On several occasions
it has clued me in to virga that I would have been oblivious to
otherwise.

Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?

I get 162 kt TAS at 8,500 full throttle leaned for best power. The
engine is a 150 hp O-320. I have wheel pants in the hangar that would
give me another 5 kt or so if I would only install them. g Plus
there are a number of other things I could do to clean it up
aerodynamically. Interestingly, the boarding step alone knocks close
to 1 kt off the top end.

Regards,

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

Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?

I get 162 kt TAS at 8,500 full throttle leaned for best power. The
engine is a 150 hp O-320. I have wheel pants in the hangar that would
give me another 5 kt or so if I would only install them. g Plus
there are a number of other things I could do to clean it up
aerodynamically. Interestingly, the boarding step alone knocks close
to 1 kt off the top end.

Regards,

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

Fascinating, Dave.
Not the TAS, but your naked honesty. ;-)

P.S.
Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.


Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.


Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver

I'm not racing anyone until I get a new prop, install a spinner,
install those damn wheel pants, and do a few other aerodynamic
cleanups. Maybe next summer if you are still game. In the meantime,
you could pit your 150 hp RV-3 against Klaus Savier's *120* hp Varieze
and get your pants blown off today.


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

P.S. Klaus Savier came in fourth this year at Reno in the Sport Class
Silver race in an O-200 powered Varieze. His average lap speed was
216 kt. This was just 6 kt slower than third place finisher John
Harmon in his 400 hp O-540 powered "Harmon Rocket III", an RV-4
derivative.

Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.


Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver

I'm not racing anyone until I get a new prop, install a spinner,
install those damn wheel pants, and do a few other aerodynamic
cleanups. Maybe next summer if you are still game. In the meantime,
you could pit your 150 hp RV-3 against Klaus Savier's *120* hp Varieze
and get your pants blown off today.

Sure, and....
I want to race in NASCAR with a show room Ford, Chevy, etc, too.

However, I might consider racing Klaus out of a 700 foot
super rough sod strip with 60 foot trees on each end. g

There are RV-3's running with aerodynamic mods that bump the
speed up, but I'm not in that group and have no plans to be.
Currently, I have no spinner and have just changed props.
It is not as good for racing as the wood one I had.
Sounds like a fairer test could be had now, not later. ; (

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

P.S. Klaus Savier came in fourth this year at Reno in the Sport Class
Silver race in an O-200 powered Varieze. His average lap speed was
216 kt. This was just 6 kt slower than third place finisher John
Harmon in his 400 hp O-540 powered "Harmon Rocket III", an RV-4
derivative.

There is a lot to be said for elegance.... and brute force.
If I was racing, I'd like both in a project.

Perhaps you have some ideas about the flat plate
areas of these two aircraft... that didn't win 1st place?

For grins...
How much more horsepower, money and RPM's would
your EZ need to fly 216 and 222 knots around pylons?



Barnyard BOb -- no substitute for cubic dollar$.. and luck.

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

However, I might consider racing Klaus out of a 700 foot
super rough sod strip with 60 foot trees on each end. g

Touché!

There are RV-3's running with aerodynamic mods that bump the
speed up, but I'm not in that group and have no plans to be.
Currently, I have no spinner and have just changed props.
It is not as good for racing as the wood one I had.
Sounds like a fairer test could be had now, not later. ; (

Racing one handicapped plane against another doesn't exactly float my
boat. I either race with my plane in good form or I don't race at
all.

For grins...
How much more horsepower, money and RPM's would
your EZ need to fly 216 and 222 knots around pylons?

Let's go with 216 kt -- I don't know about the money but the power
would have to be somewhere around 220 hp with my plane as it is now.
Significantly less if cleaned up. As I am having trouble getting
motivated to even install wheel pants, I just don't see Reno in my
future.

As I have noted before, I think the RV series is a marvelous design
and better in many respects than the Long EZ. Indeed, even Burt Rutan
concedes that "the prop belongs in the front." Nonetheless, don't
look for me to toss my old bird to the heap anytime soon.

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

David O wrote:

As I have noted before, I think the RV series is a marvelous design
and better in many respects than the Long EZ. Indeed, even Burt Rutan
concedes that "the prop belongs in the front."

If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO*
boats are that way? :-)

Russell Kent

"Russell Kent" wrote in message ...

If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO*
boats are that way? :-)

Boats don't fly very well. Wilbur and Orville found that trying to make analogies
between boat and airplane propellers was totally useless. Nobody's proved them
wrong yet.

Russell Kent wrote:

If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO* boats are
that way? :-)

Ron Natalie replied:

Boats don't fly very well.

Tell that to a Catalina. :-)

Wilbur and Orville found that trying to make analogies between boat and airplane
propellers was totally useless. Nobody's proved them wrong yet.

OK, humor aside, why should it be that comparisons between the regimes is "totally
useless". Both devices impart a force parallel to the axis by moving a mass of the
surrounding fluid backwards. 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?

For a point of data, I believe that some new very large vessels (cruise ships? VLCC?)
have multiple propellors that, while being very near the aft of the vessel, are mounted
on pylons such that the blades preceed the pylon through the water. I have to imagine
that the engineers must have a reason for doing so.

Russell Kent

Would this work? Getting back to the CG issue.....How about having
the nose gear PARTIALLY retract. The nose gear would have 2
positions. Position 1 would have the plane in the PARKED ( partially
retracted ) position. The plane would be level or slightly nose down
to facilitate easier boarding. The main gear would be far enough back
so it wouldn't tip over on it's tail when no one is aboard. ( Velocity
) For landing and takeoff, put the nosegear in the EXTENDED
position.( Position 2 ) The CG would move a little more aft, but more
importantly, the plane would be at an increased angle of attack to
facilitate better take offs and landings. That way, the plane
wouldn't have to rotate so much to get airborne and on landing, the
plane wouldn't have to "slam" down so hard (far).Just a thought.
Neal

"Neal Fulco" wrote in message
om...
Would this work? Getting back to the CG issue.....How about having
the nose gear PARTIALLY retract. The nose gear would have 2
positions. Position 1 would have the plane in the PARKED ( partially
retracted ) position. The plane would be level or slightly nose down
to facilitate easier boarding. The main gear would be far enough back
so it wouldn't tip over on it's tail when no one is aboard. ( Velocity
) For landing and takeoff, put the nosegear in the EXTENDED
position.( Position 2 ) The CG would move a little more aft, but more
importantly, the plane would be at an increased angle of attack to
facilitate better take offs and landings. That way, the plane
wouldn't have to rotate so much to get airborne and on landing, the
plane wouldn't have to "slam" down so hard (far).Just a thought.
Neal

Why change what isn't broken?
--
Jim in NC