Return-Path: Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 610869 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:44:24 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.65; envelope-from=sqpilot@bellsouth.net Received: from [216.78.114.144] by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050118004352.MASC2402.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[216.78.114.144]> for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:43:52 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [265.6.13]); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:45 -0600 Message-ID: <006801c4fcf6$c341f2d0$90724ed8@paul52u7f5qyav> From: "Paul" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: More flying Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:43:43 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=original Hi, Tom....I talked to the aircraft designer about a speed brake....he said he will never design anything to slow his aircraft down.....spent too much time designing it to go fast. I'm with him....I only used the landing brake on my LongEZ a couple of times, just to see what it would/would not do. If you "fly the numbers" and plan your approach properly, I did not feel the need for the belly landing brake. It also blocks cooling air to the NACA duct. I read about one incident where the builder had converted his brake to electric. The motor failed in the deployed position, and he could not get enough air to cool the engine. Very expensive rebuild on his Lycoming. I have found that if you are a little high or fast on final due to poor planning or ??? you can step on both rudder pedals simultaneously and the increased drag will both slow you down and assist in altitude loss. One could argue that the belly brake would be useful for a short runway with tall trees on the approach end. Probably. I just never found it necessary or very useful. I was not trying to find fault with the canard's speed and/or difficulty in slowing it down. Many of the aircraft I have flown in the military had similar characteristics....I LIKE an aircraft that is fast, even if it is difficult to slow down....I just plan a little farther ahead. I have flown piston, turbine and jet aircraft, and to me, nothing can beat these canards for their pure flying attributes. Did I mention that I love canards? Take care. Paul Conner, rotary powered SQ2000 canard in Mobile, AL ----- Original Message ----- From: "rijakits" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: More flying > Time to start to think about a big, bad speed brake? :)) > > Thomas J. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:53 AM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: More flying > > >> Hi, Tom....Unfortunately, I am still in flight testing phase, and I am >> slowly expanding the speed envelope 5 knots at a time to make sure there > is >> no flutter, so this time I throttled back when the indicated airspeed hit >> 145 knots. Next flight, I will let it accelerate to 150 knots before >> throttling back, then the next aim is for 155 knots, etc until there just >> ain't no more. Then, I will push the nose over to gain more airspeed (5 >> knots at a time) until I reach at least 25% above normal cruise speed >> (whatever that may be). I need to know that the airframe/control >> surfaces >> are flutter-free. Part of the 40 hour test flight requirements. >> Unfortunately, I will probably get all that done, and by then I will >> probably have my super-duper street ported 4-port with NA rotors and >> housings assembled/installed, and will have to start testing at higher >> airspeeds than the stock turbo engine I now have (which does not have a >> turbo on it). My guestimate is that it would probably do around 160 >> knots >> in it's present configuration, but I don't know for sure. I DO know that > it >> is difficult to slow down in the pattern. I try to maintain 120 knots >> downwind, 110 on base, 100 on short final and then 85 knots over the >> numbers, and if you are just 10 knots fast, you might as well just go >> around, because you will float most of the way down the runway trying to >> bleed off airspeed. I could probably trim a few knots off those speeds if >> there was no crosswind, but the airport I fly out of almost always has a >> crosswind. I have to throttle to just above an idle on entering downwind > to >> try to slow her to 120 knots. I will be adding the low-drag wheelpants >> sometime in the future....that should yield an additional increase in >> airspeed. Take care. Paul Conner >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tom" >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:13 AM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: More flying >> >> >> > Pardon me Paul for being so shallow, but how fast did you get it going? >> > >> > --- Paul wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > __________________________________ >> > Do you Yahoo!? >> > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. >> > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 >> > >> >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 1/14/2005 >> >> >> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005