X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [216.211.128.10] (HELO mail-in02.adhost.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1074710 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:45:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.211.128.10; envelope-from=joeh@pilgrimtech.com Received: from Pilgrim10 (tide515.microsoft.com [131.107.0.85]) by mail-in02.adhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796B92D3A54 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:44:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joeh@pilgrimtech.com) From: "Joe Hull" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Why a Canard Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:44:10 -0700 Message-ID: <008501c664b2$ced63960$cda0389d@redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0086_01C66478.22776160" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcZkoyWbLk39izqSREiomJJzljY4KAADUJHQ In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C66478.22776160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Walter and Bill (though slightly biased) summed up much of the major differences. A big one which was not mentioned is the "stall-proof" capability of the canard. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are totally "stall-proof" because if you really screw up your CG you can still stall the main wing - which is pretty much unrecoverable. But that would be true with an RV as well (i.e. get too much weight too far aft and not enough elevator at slow speed). However, if you pay attention to W&B / CG you basically cannot stall a canard - it remains fully flyable at completely aft stick at any power setting. I also like the visibility from a canard better than the RV. Because the wing is aft of the pilot location you've got great visibility out either side even to a certain extent in turns. Fiberglass is easy to work with and mistakes are easy to fix or re-do. I'm guessing that if you seriously dent an aluminum piece or drill a hole in the wrong spot it's more or less permanent and/or calls for ordering a new piece. With fiberglass it's easy to fix problems like that - and if you really screw up people have been known to pull out a grinder and simply remove all traces of the screw up and re-do it (hmmmm wonder who would screw up that badly :-) ). As far as the finishing process (i.e. making it smooth and shiny), a Velocity should be far easier to finish than a plans built canard (Cozy) like mine. With Velocities it's my understanding that you're gluing parts together - so for the most part the only part of the plane that you need to actually fill and sand for finishing is the joints. On a Cozy it's the whole airplane which is HUGE. But hey, I always wanted Popeye like arms :-) Those are just some of my thoughts. Joe Hull Cozy Mk-IV #991 (In Phase1 Flight Test - 1.9 hrs flown) Redmond (Seattle), Washington _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Grubbs, Joe Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:51 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Why a Canard 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) ------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C66478.22776160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why a Canard

Walter and Bill (though slightly = biased) summed up much of the major differences. A big one which was not = mentioned is the “stall-proof” capability of the canard. I wouldn’t go = so far as to say they are totally “stall-proof” because if you = really screw up your CG you can still stall the main wing – which is = pretty much unrecoverable. But that would be true with an RV as well (i.e. get too = much weight too far aft and not enough elevator at slow speed). However, if = you pay attention to W&B / CG you basically cannot stall a canard – it = remains fully flyable at completely aft stick at any power = setting.

 

I also like the visibility from a = canard better than the RV.  Because the wing is aft of the pilot location = you’ve got great visibility out either side even to a certain extent in = turns.

 

Fiberglass is easy to work with and mistakes are easy to fix or re-do. I’m guessing that if you = seriously dent an aluminum piece or drill a hole in the wrong spot it’s more = or less permanent and/or calls for ordering a new piece. With fiberglass = it’s easy to fix problems like that – and if you really screw up people = have been known to pull out a grinder and simply remove all traces of the = screw up and re-do it (hmmmm wonder who would screw up that badly = J = ).

 

As far as the finishing process = (i.e. making it smooth and shiny), a Velocity should be far easier to finish = than a plans built canard (Cozy) like mine. With Velocities it’s my understanding that you’re gluing parts together – so for the = most part the only part of the plane that you need to actually fill and sand = for finishing is the joints. On a Cozy it’s the whole airplane which = is HUGE. But hey, I always wanted Popeye like arms J

 

Those are just some of my = thoughts.

 

Joe = Hull

Cozy Mk-IV #991 (In Phase1 Flight = Test - 1.9 hrs flown)

Redmond (Seattle), Washington

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Grubbs, Joe
Sent: Thursday, April 20, = 2006 10:51 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Why = a Canard

 

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)

------=_NextPart_000_0086_01C66478.22776160--