X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from m15.nyc.untd.com ([64.136.22.78] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with SMTP id 1074651 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:30:15 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.22.78; envelope-from=jbker@juno.com Received: from m15.nyc.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m15.nyc.untd.com with SMTP id AABCERWZMACKZ7US for (sender ); Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jbker@juno.com) by m15.nyc.untd.com (jqueuemail) id LNEX2CSY; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:28:32 PDT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:23:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Why a Canard Message-ID: <20060420.142313.2592.4.JBKER@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_0ce1.094b.31e0 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,7-8,10-11,18-19,24-25,33-34,37-39,41-42,46,51,54-57,58-32767 From: WALTER B KERR X-ContentStamp: 17:8:1409810460 X-MAIL-INFO:545c11b51cace8495de9b1c51cfcf5650d006c457825e92901e5299db12901 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: Y+Mfppm2QyGfnY/dq+iW1XvANMBFgqCM3dH9ltDne4rr46818jUG3Q== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m15.nyc.untd.com|jbker@juno.com This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_0ce1.094b.31e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Joe, By the same token, think you should ask the guys who built metal tractor airplanes why they chose them over composite canards. My thoughts are these and I have worked with both materials, if you do not mind a nasty environment to work in and do not know if your results are structurally sound, but you want a sleek finish ( with lots of elbow grease) then composite may be for you. Time to build is a real function of the builder and it is difficult to judge which is quicker. You will have to invest in more tools ($) to build in metal, but the need for band saws and floor mounted drills has dissipated with the new van's kits. The canard will be faster I think for the same HP (i.e. fuel burn), but the penalty is that you are not going to fly off of a grass field and the minumum landing speed is higher on the canard which may be a real consideration if you are going to a "true experimental engine installation" Really do not know about noise level in the cockpit of a 10 vs vel, but my experience with UL pushers and overhead tractors was exactly opposite what I anticipated. Used to fly Kolb firestar and Mark III and looked down my nose at phantoms etc that had the engine overhead and in front. Could not believe how much quieter the flightstar with tractor was than the firestar with the same brand prop and both with 503's. Would be interesting to see some data. All I can say is that you did not wish to fly in my rotary 9A with a noise canceling head set. Do you like vanilla or chocolate, they are all a compromise and you have to decide for yourself which better suits your requirements not someone else's! Bernie, the deserter! On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:03 -0700 "Grubbs, Joe" writes: Hello, I have just begun to believe that I could successfully build and fly an airplane. As such, I joined this mail list and have started reading your comments, questions, & concerns. The help you are providing each other seems to be valuable. In just a few weeks of reading two airplanes will easily fit my need and allow for growth, the RV-10 and Velocity XLRG. Of the two, I favor the RV for its better STOL capabilities and low speed landings. There are benefits to a pusher style drive system (besides a quieter ride), the Velocity is a good looking plane (that has to count for something). So, my question to you all is, for those who fly a canard style airplane, what were the top reasons you chose this style of aircraft to build and fly? Thank you; J.D. Grubbs Dreaming in Port Orchard, WA 360-434-2120 (C) ----__JNP_000_0ce1.094b.31e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why a Canard
Hi Joe,
 
By the same token, think you should ask the guys who built metal = tractor=20 airplanes why they chose them over composite canards.
 
My thoughts are these and I have worked with both materials, if you do= not=20 mind a nasty environment to work in and do not know if your results are=20 structurally sound, but you want a sleek finish ( with lots of elbow grease= )=20 then composite may be for you. Time to build is  a real function of = the=20 builder and it is difficult to judge which is quicker. You will have to = invest=20 in more tools ($) to build in metal, but the need for band saws and floor=20 mounted drills has dissipated with the new van's kits.
 
The canard will be faster I think for the same HP (i.e. fuel burn), = but the=20 penalty is that you are not going to fly off of a grass field and the = minumum=20 landing speed is higher on the canard which may be a real consideration if = you=20 are going to a "true experimental engine installation"
 
Really do not know about noise level in the cockpit of a 10 vs vel, = but my=20 experience with UL pushers and overhead tractors was exactly opposite what = I=20 anticipated. Used to fly Kolb firestar and Mark III and looked down my nose= at=20 phantoms etc that had the engine overhead and in front. Could not believe = how=20 much quieter the flightstar with tractor was than the firestar with the = same=20 brand prop and both with 503's. Would be interesting to see some data. All = I can=20 say is that you did not wish to fly in my rotary 9A with a noise canceling = head=20 set.
 
Do you like vanilla or chocolate, they are all a compromise and you = have to=20 decide for yourself which better suits your requirements not someone=20 else's!
 
Bernie, the deserter!
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:03 -0700 "Grubbs, Joe" <joe.grubbs@weyerhaeuser.com= >=20 writes:

Hello,

I have just begun to believe that I could= =20 successfully build and fly an airplane.  As such, I joined this mail= list=20 and have started reading your comments, questions, & concerns.  = The=20 help you are providing each other seems to be valuable.

In just a few weeks of reading two = airplanes will=20 easily fit my need and allow for growth, the RV-10 and Velocity XLRG.&= nbsp; Of=20 the two, I favor the RV for its better STOL capabilities and low speed=20 landings.  There are benefits to a pusher style drive system (= besides a=20 quieter ride), the Velocity is a good looking plane (that has to count = for=20 something).

So, my question to you all is, for those = who fly a=20 canard style airplane, what were the top reasons you chose this style of= =20 aircraft to build and fly?

Thank you;

J.D. Grubbs
= Dreaming in Port=20 Orchard, WA
360-434-2120 (C)

 
----__JNP_000_0ce1.094b.31e0--