composite or canard?

[deuskid]

in the words of Donny and Marie: a little bit country and a little bit rock and roll....

I'm wondering if it is the beauty of soft, curvy composite design or the attributes of canard flight that tipped the scales to your choice?

The reason is; Lightning:

a blending of composite and RV:

here is their website: http://www.arionaircraft.com/

here is a tread in Matronics where I raised the comparison between a RV-9A and a lightning [-9A is the closest comparison to it]: http://forums.matronics.com/viewforum.php?f=64

I'm wondering if I could have the best of both worlds [then add a diesel... and I'd think I'd died and gone to heaven].

What are your thoughts?

John

[CBarber]

I'm thinking, don't fly into lightning.....or into mountains....or without fuel etc, etc. Lighting is a risk managment item. It seems to be an issue metal folks like to throw out there now and then and while it is a concern, I do not think it is the issue to base your build on. Build/fly what you like, like what you build/fly.

Sorry, I know that is not much help. I like the looks and the performance of the Velocity. I like getting into an airplane as oppossed to strapping on an airplane. I want fast crosscountry as oppossed to aerobatics. I get a kick out of newer technology in my cabin......etc, etc, etc (as in the "King and I").

All the best,

Chris

[Nathan Gifford]

Yeah, the big thing to do is avoid no matter what kind of plane you fly.

How many RV pilots have gone out looking for lightning to prove that is a reasonable thing to do?

[chasingmars]

Originally Posted by CBarber

I'm thinking, don't fly into lightning.....

nono, the plane he's talking about (composite RV-style thingie) is called "Lightning".

'course, I'd suggest flying into it is still a bad idea...

[deuskid]

my bad...

I guess I should have been more explicit about my question.

There is a new kit plane being offered and as Chasingmars explained it is called a 'Lightening'.

Kind of a composite RV-9A [more or less].

I gave links to the company's website and to a matronix's forum on the plane.

I was seeking an answer to this question:

did you chose what you are building mostly because it was:

A] a composite

or

B] a canard?

Another way to ask is, if you could have a composite that costs about what a Cozy IV costs but more conventional in design would you opt for it?

thanks,

John

[Steve parkins]

Originally Posted by deuskid

I guess I should have been more explicit about my question.

Another way to ask is, if you could have a composite that costs about what a Cozy IV costs but more conventional in design would you opt for it?

thanks,

John

thats a good Q.
i ask it to my self alot,
i got the mark4 becase of the small start up costs
the rv is cool but cost is up there a bit
there are cool planes out there but dont offer the 'buy a pice at a time'
i wish i could but floats this way

[chasingmars]

I'd choose a 4 place three-surface design in S2-glass composite if such a beast existed. I'm just not that big a fan of the all-carbon trend, just way to expensive and finicky. But a Cozy sized piaggio or such would be pretty neat...

Of course, if someone reinterpreted this to a tandem glass plane, I'd be awefully tempted, it's simply a thing of beauty...

[CBarber]

Oh, that is different. Nevermind. Sorry.

As to that, I don't know. I looked at the Lancairs, but the price difference was too much considering I got about the same performance from the Velo....give or take. At the time, Vans did not offer the RV-10. Even though I may very rarely use it, I do like the idea of four seats.

There is something about the Velo that appealse to me. The canard issue is nice, but not a final deciding issue. I guess it is just the "kewl look" thing accompanied by other mission profile desires....fast, four person, not certified and whatnot. The fact that they tend to garner a lot of attention is not a bad thing either for me. Some may hate that aspect of it, I kinda like it. Kewl, fast, comfortable and kinda sexy, or so I would like to think/hope.

At the time of my purchase, what material was used was not much of an issue. There was gonna be a learning curve whatever plane I chose. I would learn to build with what the plane I chose was made with. I considered the two place Barracuda, which is wood. Of course, the RV's from aluminum and the Lancair and Velocity's from fiberglass. In retrospect, I am tickled that I built with fiberglass, thinkg the other forms are not "as good/cutting edge/or whatever. But, I may feel the same if'n I built with wood or metal being one of the ones who dispise fiberglass 'cuz of all the dust....or smell....or chemical.......or whatever the uninitiated bitch about regarding fiberglass construction. Thank Gawd I now know better.

FWIW.

All the best,

Chris

[Spodman]

did you chose what you are building mostly because it was:

A] a composite

or

B] a canard?

or C] Plans built rather than expensive kit

or

D] 4 seats

or

E] all of the above.

I pick E]

[chasingmars]

Originally Posted by CBarber

Oh, that is different.

It's a Bugatti 100P, designed in the late thirties to beat the Germans in air racing, never flew, hidden in a barn through the war, and I think now hanging in the EAA museum engineless... it's neither glass nor metal, it's wood...
... and it had water cooled aluminum block automotive conversions
(Twin V8s, 450hp each coaxial through a gearbox to contra-rotating props)... not bad for the thirties, eh?

Oh, and I'll pick (E) too...

[Andrew Anunson]

Yep, nice plane, but like Spodman, I chose Cozy because of A through E.
Very important that Cozy is plans built, with spending in small increments for now.

The lightning advertises that "no epoxy layups are needed to complete the kit." Now where's the fun in that?

I'm sure it really is great fun, but its a "Kit" and its expensive all at one time.

[deuskid]

...seems the most consistent answer is plans build [although there is a wide disperson] spreads the cost out much further - over a longer period.

I can understand that but have always marveled how someone will spend 5 or more years building when, if they took a part time job and saved the money they could buy a flying aircraft sooner. And I know that for each of us there are numerous inputs and most just list the few highest priorities.

I don't need 4 seats but like side by side. My priorities are such that I'd rather buy and fly sooner than build and fly later [but fully understand the satisfaction of building and if that is the primary motivator - kudos] BUT I want to be allowed to self maintain [or pay someone if I choose] and not be dictated as to which parts and who can work on my a/c so experimental is a must for me.

I personally like composites. I'd prefer to have the option to land on grass tho and that [and side by side] makes canard less desirable. Love the efficiency and speed of a canard tho.

I was leaning toward a RV-9 until the Lightning presented itself. I'm still more than a year away from knowing if I'm going to have a recurring commute [of > 500 nm] so am in no rush to make a decision. Based upon a proven design grass capability, 5.5 gph @ 140 knots, assembled in a few months and reasonable cost. If I find myself in need the Lightning a/c could be a good match.

I thought most of your replies to my question would have been:

canard for looks and function...

I'm surprised - at both your answers and the lack of appreciation for this blending of composite/experimental/usa-sourced/low wing a/c.

Thanks for the feedback.

All the best,

John

[Dust]

Originally Posted by deuskid

I can understand that but have always marveled how someone will spend 5 or more years building when, if they took a part time job and saved the money they could buy a flying aircraft sooner.
John

Well, or me, there are simply not any production aircraft that will fit my needs at a reasonable cost.

To get the performance i am looking for would be ??? I do not yet know what my performance figures will be, i only know what i am aiming for, but, what plane out there will cruise at 190 knots?

Any little improvement costs mega bucks in a certificated plane, my buddy put in a backup fuel pump, instead of the hand pump he had - $2200.00. For a low pressure fuel pump.

A new panel cost him $7000, just for the aluminum panel and a few switches and breakers. That was not the installed cost - just the part cost, many more thousands for the install

I'm looking at higher speeds than those and a fuel burn of 12 GPH. in a cert plane, it would take 17 GPH to approach 220 mph, let alone higher than that speeds.

what it boils down to is, will the used plane fulfill your needs AND desires. If the answer is yes and you can afford it - go for it.

The plane you have must perform a function that you want cause it is expensive in both time and money.

If you build a plane, you better love it AND it better perform a function that you really want cause ifin it does not do both, you will probably not finish it.

As for grass landings, I'll just fly close to where I wish to camp, hunt or fish and rent a vehicle or meet someone from that local to pick me up.

North Dakota pheasant season, here I come.

Go to the Google map link on this forum and search out an area you wish to go and check out the strips, paved or not

whew, too much writing

[deuskid]

Originally Posted by Dust

Well, or me, there are simply not any production aircraft that will fit my needs at a reasonable cost.

To get the performance i am looking for would be ??? I do not yet know what my performance figures will be, i only know what i am aiming for, but, what plane out there will cruise at 190 knots?

Any little improvement costs mega bucks in a certificated plane, my buddy put in a backup fuel pump, instead of the hand pump he had - $2200.00. For a low pressure fuel pump.

A new panel cost him $7000, just for the aluminum panel and a few switches and breakers. That was not the installed cost - just the part cost, many more thousands for the install

I'm looking at higher speeds than those and a fuel burn of 12 GPH. in a cert plane, it would take 17 GPH to approach 220 mph, let alone higher than that speeds.

Hi Dust: I wouldn't consider a certified a/c. But one could buy a flying XxXxXxX experimental for about what it costs to buy all the materials [seems to hold true for Rutan designs and RVs] so one could get what they want, faster and easier without building and still be allowed to do maintenance and customization [is that a word?] albeit, have to get someone to do the annual for the a/c.

Originally Posted by Dust

what it boils down to is, will the used plane fulfill your needs AND desires. If the answer is yes and you can afford it - go for it.

The plane you have must perform a function that you want cause it is expensive in both time and money.

If you build a plane, you better love it AND it better perform a function that you really want cause ifin it does not do both, you will probably not finish it.

that is why I think the very first question any builder should as is "do I love building?"... I believe that is why so many projects [both kit and plans] are never finished. They wanted to fly NOT build, really.

Originally Posted by Dust

As for grass landings, I'll just fly close to where I wish to camp, hunt or fish and rent a vehicle or meet someone from that local to pick me up.

North Dakota pheasant season, here I come.

Go to the Google map link on this forum and search out an area you wish to go and check out the strips, paved or not

whew, too much writing

Thats a good plan but why limit myself if I don't need to limit myself...additionally, I figure if I have to set down in an emergency better to be in something that is designed to be put into a field rather than something whose design makes it less practical, finally, non-canard designs don't need as long a strip in or out even when only considering paved.

All a/c decisions are compromises so what might be important to some [like grass strips or a stable platform for IFR] aren't high on another's list. That is what makes life interesting.

Only I want to know why does a canard person always marries a high wing person?...



John

[John Slade]

They wanted to fly NOT build, really.

The trouble with that is that you don't know what you like till you do it. I started off just wanting an airplane... then realized that building is fun.