Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Plane Specific Questions Tips, Tricks Area for All Canard Kits and Plans Planes
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2006, 05:31 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default Multipurpose Canard - Bateleur on Steroids

We are all aware that all planes are a bunch of compromises flying in close formation.
Notwithstanding this fact, my, and I guess a lot of folks', ideal plane would be a low wing canard with the following features:
1) Six places in three rows, lounge seating in the back.
2) Slightly wider, let's say 3-5 inches, than a Cozy.
3) Slightly longer, let's say 2 feet, than a Cozy.
4) Slightly higher, let's say 3 inches, than a Cozy, allowing more upright seating.
5) Low delta wing, blanketing the prop, thus protecting it from FOD.
6) Slightly lower wing and canard loading, which, combined with the low delta wing, should offer considerable short/rough field capabilities.
7) Fuel efficient diesel engine, capable of burning Jet-A and/or diesel, thus protecting the plane from built-in obsolescence and making it more suitable for a worldwide target group, rather than restricting it to regions with cheap avgas and/or mogas. Presently the most suitable candidate seems to be the Mercedes Benz 3.0 liter V6 turbo-diesel at 208kg dry weight and 224HP, chipped to ~250 or even ~275HP, swinging a three or five blade Ivo Magnum in-flight adjustable prop.
This plane would look like a Bateleur on steroids. Before moving to Germany, this plane was developed in South Africa with short airstrip or even bush abilities in mind.
It wouldn't bother me at all, if this plane would be let's say 20% slower than a Cozy, if this sacrifice in speed would be compensated by reasonable STOL ability and load carrying capacity both in volume and weight. Lower speed would also be offset by higher fuel efficiency, obviating the need for intermediate refueling stops.
Spar through the floor of the 6 feet long back compartment, at the center of gravity. Pilot and co-pilot balance the engine, passengers and fuel are grouped around the center of gravity, minimizing CoG excursions with varying loading and fuel burn.
Many aircraft offer an option of a large wing, suitable for short/rough airstrips and/or low time pilots and/or relatively short range missions, and a small wing for more speed. I would like to see this option offered in this plane.
OK, that's the main idea, open to suggestions and discussion. Let the flaming begin!
And its name? "Balled Eagle"
Who among us is willing and able to try this concept in X-Plane and report his/her findings?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 08-17-2006 at 05:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2006, 07:39 AM
mdswitzer's Avatar
mdswitzer mdswitzer is offline
mdswitzer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: macon county illinois
Posts: 156
Default

I would like to build something like that at some time. For now, i will probably stick with a slightly modified Long EZ (duplicating successful modifications already tried by others), i may add retract gear & a water cooled engine of some sort

Once its flying I may start something else along the lines you are talking about, I will have to convince one of my aero engineer buddies to help with a few things though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2006, 10:49 AM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

actually, a 6 seater aircraft is not very multi-purpose at all. It's really only efficient if your carrying 6 people, and how often does that happen? Otherwise you're just carrying around a lot of dead weight and burning lots of extra gas.
__________________
Plans #000

Redesigned 4-place canard.
500+ hrs into prototype build, Start Oct. 1, 05

(also build a MkIV fuselage, w/plans #1279)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2006, 11:14 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

if you look at the specs - 6 seats full - not much range as you have to have lots of air in the tanks to keep in gross weight limitations

They are really 4+2's
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2006, 11:47 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

The MB 3.0 liter V6 could be regarded as a pair of Centurion turbo-diesels.
They are 135HP for takeoff and climb, 95HP for cruise. Their BSFC at the cruise power setting is 212 g/kW/h ~ 0.345 lbs/HP/h.
So, a MB 3.0 liter V6 at a power setting of ~ 190HP should consume ~65lbs of fuel per hour, i.e. ~ 9 gallons per hour, much less at lower power settings; please don't forget a diesel engine has no pumping losses, no throttling.
Even the standard 52 gallons fuel capacity of a Cozy would give an endurance of more than five hours cruise and a range of 750-1000 miles. Larger strakes with a fuel capacity of about 30 gallons each, and a standard ~20 gallons polypropylene automotive fuel tank as underseat sump, would increase fuel capacity to ~80 gallons and range accordingly.
The feat of the non-stop Atlantic crossing by the Diamond Twin Star with its two Centurions comes to mind: the aircraft covered 1900 nautical miles burning just 72 gallons of Jet-A!
The "multipurpose" refers to several possible missions and profiles:
Paved or unpaved airstrips, grass, snow, conceivably even floats, since the prop is protected by the wing. If it were not experimental, this aircraft could be used as a very efficient air-taxi, or ambulance, or, given the big compartment in the back, even for load hauling. Just think of the camping gear such a plane could haul to remote airstrips.
Now, another question: would it be possible to reduce spar length to 2.0m (6'6"), with corresponding spars in the (easily detachable) wings, rendering the aircraft easy to tow on a public road?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 08-17-2006 at 12:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2006, 04:44 PM
SteveWrightNZ SteveWrightNZ is offline
builder wannabe
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Posts: 771
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
Otherwise you're just [snip] burning lots of extra gas.
Canards throttle back real well and use minimal fuel when in "no hurry" mode.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2006, 06:52 PM
JonC's Avatar
JonC JonC is offline
LEz - N555LE Q - N555QA
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 997
Default

Lets just skip the 6 place Cozy and do a 6 place club seating twin with an aisle, wetbar and air stairs.

With turbodiesels you could probably fly it around with the fuel economy of a boosted turbo rotary and arrive in style.
__________________
~Nathan
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2006, 07:36 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
We are all aware that all planes are a bunch of compromises flying in close formation.
Notwithstanding this fact, my, and I guess a lot of folks', ideal plane would be a low wing canard with the following features:
1) Six places in three rows, lounge seating in the back.
2) Slightly wider, let's say 3-5 inches, than a Cozy.
3) Slightly longer, let's say 2 feet, than a Cozy.
4) Slightly higher, let's say 3 inches, than a Cozy, allowing more upright seating.
5) Low delta wing, blanketing the prop, thus protecting it from FOD.
6) Slightly lower wing and canard loading, which, combined with the low delta wing, should offer considerable short/rough field capabilities.
7) Fuel efficient diesel engine, capable of burning Jet-A and/or diesel
Consider putting 350hp in the rear of a Defiant and two seats up front and you'd satisfy #1-4. At the same time, for most of us 4 seats is 2-3 seats too many. While the larger gross could be used to carry extra fuel, the range capacity of a long-range equipped Cozy IV already exceeds the endurance of most aviators, not to mention mission needs. Dreaming vs practicality.

Last edited by Ben : 08-17-2006 at 08:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2006, 08:12 PM
mdswitzer's Avatar
mdswitzer mdswitzer is offline
mdswitzer
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: macon county illinois
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
exceeds the endurance of most aviators
Thats what relief tubes are for
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-18-2006, 12:31 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
exceeds the endurance of most aviators

That's for sure, but then there are relief tubes, massaging seatbacks etc. Anyway, the maximum range would rarely be used, and then not for 6 passengers with full luggage and full fuel. As Dust mentioned, more like a 4+2, just like almost any certified 6. The two rearmost seats would be for children or small persons or extra luggage. Still, with a big rear compartment communicating with the co-pilot's area through an opening in the bulkhead and a clapping co-pilot's seat, thus allowing stowage of really long items, such as skis, inflatable catamarans etc. this could be a hell of a multi-purpose plane.
The conceived missions would be:
Six persons: up to 750, preferably up to 500 miles.
Four persons and luggage: full range
Two persons: transatlantic, probably with a stop at the Azores.
I would dearly love a twin, and I would do it in a jiffy, if in-line twin experimentals could be operated on a single engine licence. Since that is no longer the case (we've had this discussion) and multi-engine training is out of the question, I'm forced to use one powerful, reliable, efficient engine.
Now, what about a model in X-Plane?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-18-2006, 12:58 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

i have a whole day of air law ahead of me, maybe ill play around in xplane a little
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-18-2006, 02:44 AM
johnd01 johnd01 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sacramento Ca
Posts: 25
Default gross weight

What is the target Gross weight?

Even just making the cozy a real 4 place plane rather than a 2+2 would help.
How much more wing area are you planning?

Even a Canadair CL-600 Challenger 604 (twin-jet) becomes a 4 place plane with full fuel (17000 lbs).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-18-2006, 05:10 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

I know things flying don't scale linearly, Reynolds number etc., however, given the ~30% higher power and ~30% higher fuel efficiency of the turbodiesel, I think the Cozy MkIV's 1050 lbs. empty and ~2050 lbs. gross weight (as per specs, usually higher) could be increased to ~1500 lbs. empty and ~2800 lbs. gross weight, actual numbers may vary. The 500 lbs. difference in empty weight would be due to the ~220 lbs. heavier engine, ~220 lbs. extra structure in bigger wings and longer and stronger fuselage, and only ~60 lbs. (~8.5 gallons) extra fuel. Front gear retractable with a bigger wheel, main gear preferably fixed, legs out of motorcycle forks, wheels bigger, scooter size, able to handle rough/grass airstrips. 6X150 lbs. for passengers = 900 lbs, 60 gallons fuel X 7 lbs. = 420 lbs., total = 1320 lbs., no baggage, or any other combination of the above plus baggage.
Easily detachable and changeable main wings and canard, providing the option of big wings and canard for short range / short/rough airstrips, or smaller wings and canard for long range / long/paved runways. Road trailerable on its scooter wheels and oleo forks.
I think it's doable. I know it does not sound as sexy as a 400HP three rotor turbocharged rotary Cozy MkIV, but think of the children
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-18-2006, 09:13 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Some numbers for comparison:
............................Bateleur.............. Cozy MkIV..........Balled Eagle
passengers................2....................... ...4.......................6
power....................100HP.................. 180HP...............~275HP
cruise @ 8000 ft....~155mph...............~220mph............~18 5mph?
takeoff/landing.......~40mph.................~80mph....... .......~60mph?
span.......................20.50 ft................28.10 ft...............35 ft.?
wing area...............150.70 sq.ft..........176,60 sq.ft...........250.00 sq.ft.?
fuel/range...............22/750.................52/1000.............60/750-1000?
empty weight..........550 lbs.................1050 lbs...........~1500 lbs.?
gross weight..........1000 lbs.?..............2050 lbs...........~2800 lbs.?

I know everything about the Balled Eagle is conjecture and extrapolation, still the numbers seem pretty realistic, given the horsepower and fuel burn of the engine. That's where aerodynamicists come in, I shamefully admit to next to no knowledge in this area.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	BatFront.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	2673  Click image for larger version

Name:	BatBack.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	16.7 KB
ID:	2674  Click image for larger version

Name:	BatFlying.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	17.1 KB
ID:	2675  

Last edited by Kumaros : 08-18-2006 at 09:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-19-2006, 01:30 AM
chasingmars chasingmars is offline
ChasingMars
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Some numbers for comparison:

takeoff/landing.......~40mph.................~80mph....... .......~60mph?
span.......................20.50 ft................28.10 ft...............35 ft.?
wing area...............150.70 sq.ft..........176,60 sq.ft...........250.00 sq.ft.?
gross weight..........1000 lbs.?..............2050 lbs...........~2800 lbs.?

<snip>
where aerodynamicists come in, I shamefully admit to next to no knowledge in this area.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Well, right off the bat, a Cozy IV has a wing area of more like 101.4, least according to my (unedited generic) POH. Takeoff is at 75kts or 86mph... so, with the Cozy's loading of 20.2 lb/sq ft, and your proposed loading of 11.2 lb/sq ft, you can expect (providing the wing/canard have similar max lift coefficients and a host of other simlifying assumptions) that your takeoff speed will be in the vicinity of 56 kts, or about 65 mph - a little higher than you expected (takeoff speed goes to the square root of wing loading all else being equal)

Your Aspect Ratio of course will depend on the area distribution between main and canard, but assuming cozy-like ratios, your main wing has an aspect ratio of about 5.6 - compare to the cozy IV at about 8.9 - this has a direct impact on your aircraft's efficiency at generating lift, since it relates to a much higher span loading. But that's probably about what you should expect if you want to go to a more semi-delta planform - deltas have crummy aspect ratios.

Course, the concept is entirely academic for me - Canadian amateur builts are limited to four places.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.