Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.53.208; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <4CCF6034.3050707@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:49:56 -0500
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Vne is the question was Re: How fast is it safe
 to turn a Prop. Opinion Poll
References: <list-4550985@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4550985@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/1/2010 3:36 PM, John Slade wrote:
>  That's interesting.
> In the canard world, VNE is based on IAS - i.e. the speed with which 
> the air molecules are hitting the airframe.
> We establish VNE by doing flutter tests (whacking the stick forward, 
> back and side to side to check that the oscillation is self-canceling, 
> then increasing by 5 kts and trying it again.)
> I wonder why backwards airplanes would be different.
> John
It's unlikely that there's any difference. What's more likely is that 
most canard drivers are like most 'normal' a/c drivers (including me): 
They missed that memo. Just about every RV-x driver I've ever talked to 
thought that VNE was based on IAS, until Van published that article. 
(That would include me.)

What I've heard from people that *did* know, was that most homebuilts 
historically haven't flown high enough for the difference spread between 
IAS & TAS  to matter, so the subject just didn't come up. Turbocharging, 
massively overpowered power/weight ratios (think Harmon Rocket), etc 
that have started allowing really high altitude operation have changed 
that a bit. :-)

FWIW,

Charlie