Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.86; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4447E755.2020207@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 15:56:05 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Why a Canard
References: <list-1074611@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1074611@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Grubbs, Joe wrote:

> 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)
>

Some of us couldn't make up our minds.  We cut to the chase and just 
went with one big wing in the middle.  Being ambivalent about the 
construction method also, we decide to do tube'n'rag AND composite 
work.  No point in limiting yourself.
 8*)

-- 
         ,|"|"|,               Ernest Christley     |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----     Dyke Delta Builder    |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |