X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 02:28:10 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 6009402 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:52:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=K++g7lqI c=1 sm=0 a=+kuJ7Sa7hUpxs7xJxzDFzQ==:17 a=AeF9CLZUGkAA:10 a=BLtPfswWht0A:10 a=zTVDa7HKqxcA:10 a=doupyKFmAAAA:8 a=QCjSCGIhO14A:10 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=dIyyNhVJcy-JSQgj5V4A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=0vUscowIxtUA:10 a=2ioG2KidvCrzBJUa9QsA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=9Io93MEgO2sCr6uB:21 a=+kuJ7Sa7hUpxs7xJxzDFzQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 76.179.81.18 Received: from [76.179.81.18] ([76.179.81.18:62801] helo=WilliamHP) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id A4/75-25866-F0502F05; Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:51:27 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Bill Wade" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:51:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0067_01CDF0FE.3356AC10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CDF0FE.3356AC10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott- I was exaggerating for effect- However, my understanding = is that canards are theoretically more efficient because the canard = provides a lift component as opposed to a horizontal stabilizer that has = to create negative lift. In both cases the aircraft is balanced so the = nose drops during a stall. In practice, the canard *has* to stall before = the main wing. The =E2=80=9Cdeep stall=E2=80=9D experienced during a = flight test on the Velocity is a case in point. That plane entered a = stable vertical descent- I think it was 500 FPM- and couldn=E2=80=99t be = gotten out of it. The pilot actually opened the door and tried to shift = CG by leaning forward. Fortunately it landed in water and the pilot = survived with back injuries. The factory did some innovative testing to = try to understand what happened. I had one of the first Velocity kits (a very early RG), and after some = time we received cuffs that we were told to put on the elevator LE. I = wasn=E2=80=99t thrilled- I already had everything built and carefully = adjusted. I never heard an explanation, just that it was to adjust the = gap and decrease the lift of the canard. From this, I=E2=80=99d = speculate that during the incident the main wing partially stalled while = the canard kept flying. Under those circumstances the nose = couldn=E2=80=99t drop and the wing couldn=E2=80=99t regain lift. So the = fix was a compromise that reduced efficiency in return for an extra = margin of safety. I never finished mine as I saw enough fatalities over the years and = found too many construction aspects that I didn=E2=80=99t like. In the = end I decided the plane was too limited in terms of fuel capacity and = payload so I abandoned it. My understanding is that as a stall = approaches the canard stalls first due to higher loading, dropping the = nose and regaining airspeed. If the conditions continued, the process = would repeat. -Bill Wade From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:36 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 Bill, Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you meant = aircraft with canards. I challenge your statement that they are more = efficient. However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the = canard remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that = crucial wingy-thingy. Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft = although you may have to find out how much power he wrings out his = engine and what that funny skinny prop is doing. BTW, they are good = airplanes that avoid main wing stalls and just mush on down. Grayhawk In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time, = super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes: In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards = haven=E2=80=99t been mentioned. It=E2=80=99s well known they=E2=80=99re = more efficient- surely that=E2=80=99s due to the fact that they were = designed from the ground up to fly backwards. Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of the Coriolis = effect between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a = discussion of ETE- Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the = warping of the space/time continuum as you approach the Equator and then = experience the reversal during passage. This is distinct from ETA- = Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a spatial and temporal dissonance = caused by situations such as: What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite (a = cute, fuzzy marsupial). Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for = consenting adults?=20 You get the idea... Cheers- Bill Wade ------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CDF0FE.3356AC10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Scott-
           &n= bsp; =20 I was exaggerating for effect- However, my understanding is that canards = are=20 theoretically more efficient because the canard provides a lift = component as=20 opposed to a horizontal stabilizer that has to create negative lift. In = both=20 cases the aircraft is balanced so the nose drops during a stall. In = practice,=20 the canard *has* to stall before the main wing. The =E2=80=9Cdeep = stall=E2=80=9D experienced=20 during a flight test on the Velocity is a case in point. That plane = entered a=20 stable vertical descent- I think it was 500 FPM- and couldn=E2=80=99t be = gotten out of=20 it. The pilot actually opened the door and tried to shift CG by leaning = forward.=20 Fortunately it landed in water and the pilot survived with back = injuries. The=20 factory did some innovative testing to try to understand what = happened.
 
  I had one of the first Velocity kits (a very early RG), and = after=20 some time we received cuffs that we were told to put on the elevator LE. = I=20 wasn=E2=80=99t thrilled- I already had everything built and carefully = adjusted. I never=20 heard an explanation, just that it was to adjust the gap and decrease = the lift=20 of the canard. From this, I=E2=80=99d speculate that during the incident = the main wing=20 partially stalled while the canard kept flying. Under those = circumstances the=20 nose couldn=E2=80=99t drop and the wing couldn=E2=80=99t regain lift. So = the fix was a=20 compromise that reduced efficiency in return for an extra margin of=20 safety.
 
I never finished mine as I saw enough fatalities over the years and = found=20 too many construction aspects that I didn=E2=80=99t like. In the end I = decided the plane=20 was too limited in terms of fuel capacity and payload so I abandoned it. = My=20 understanding is that as a stall approaches the canard stalls first due = to=20 higher loading, dropping the nose and regaining airspeed. If the = conditions=20 continued, the process would repeat.  -Bill Wade
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: Fw: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice=20 LNC2
 
Bill,
 
Recently there have been many canards on this list - Oh, maybe you = meant=20 aircraft with canards.  I challenge your statement that they are = more=20 efficient.  However, they do operate well in the ETE as long as the = canard=20 remains clean as a smutty canard causes loss of lift on that crucial=20 wingy-thingy.  Only Klaus has an efficient canard aircraft although = you may=20 have to find out how much power he wrings out his engine and what that = funny=20 skinny prop is doing.  BTW, they are good airplanes that avoid main = wing=20 stalls and just mush on down.
 
Grayhawk
 
In a message dated 1/12/2013 12:18:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,=20 super_chipmunk@roadrunner.com writes:
  In this discussion I=E2=80=99m surprised that Canards = haven=E2=80=99t been=20 mentioned. It=E2=80=99s well known they=E2=80=99re more efficient- = surely that=E2=80=99s due to the=20 fact that they were designed from the ground up to fly = backwards.
 
  Also, given the fact that there=E2=80=99s a reversal of = the Coriolis=20 effect between the two hemispheres why hasn=E2=80=99t there been a = discussion of ETE-=20 Equitorial Transition Effect? That=E2=80=99s the warping of the = space/time continuum=20 as you approach the Equator and then experience the reversal during = passage.=20 This is distinct from ETA- Everyone=E2=80=99s Talking Australian, a = spatial and=20 temporal dissonance caused by situations such as:
 
What=E2=80=99s a Goanna- is that what=E2=80=99s eating my Marmite = (a cute, fuzzy=20 marsupial).
 
Is it polite to play your Didgeridoo in public or it only for = consenting=20 adults?
 
You get the idea...  Cheers- Bill Wade
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0067_01CDF0FE.3356AC10--