Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Landing Gear, Wheels, Tires, and Brakes
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 02-01-2007, 09:39 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

What have i suggested that has not been done?

The reason i have done these things is it was blasphemy on the internet to do so, i did not realize that it had been done
__________________
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
  #62  
Old 02-01-2007, 09:49 AM
Clutch Cargo's Avatar
Clutch Cargo Clutch Cargo is offline
w/ Spinner and Paddlefoot
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 602
Default Smelling of it, the coffee...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Slade View Post
I've known people who argue intensely without reason, but keep the argument going until everyone else gets bored with it, then call it a victory. That technique wont work here. I think there's a word for it.
Would that word be filibuster?

I see your point. Well then, should we call a "spade" a "spade"? If it's dreaming, why not put a section for it here on the forum. It would include discussion on any unproven mod that would affect the aerodynamics and/or CG of the aircraft. Those interested in speculative simulated building would find a place here as those of us actually building would not have to go there if not so inclined.

Or not.
__________________
Plans #618, a tub, and everything I need to go to chapter 11 except: TIME! and a cold beer

"I'll do the "thinnin'" around here, Bobba Looey" ! - Quicksdraw McGraw
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-01-2007, 09:57 AM
Phil Kriley Phil Kriley is offline
Phil Kriley
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Renfrew, PA
Posts: 179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karoliina View Post
Well, my building supervisor (analoguous to FAA inspector in your terms) thinks that it would ruin a high performance aircraft to not use a constant speed propeller on it and he don't approve our plane if it is equipped with a el-cheapo two blade fixed wood prop. And based on my own experience with flying a plane with a CS prop (MT Propeller), it really makes a _huge_ difference, especially in takeoff and approach/landing performance. However YMMV.
With all due respect, everything I have read about c/s props is that they don't make much sense on engines below 200 hp. Further, by the FAA's definition our Cozys are not "high performance". Your building inspector appears to have some unfounded pre-conceived notions as to what is safe, too. JOOC - would your inspector approve of the other modifications Mike has suggeested?
__________________
Phil Kriley
N87PR
Plans #1460
Chapter 9, Step 1
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-01-2007, 10:47 AM
Waiter's Avatar
Waiter Waiter is offline
LongEZ-RG
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwestern Ohio
Posts: 1,096
Default

Quote:
Well, my building supervisor (analoguous to FAA inspector in your terms) thinks that it would ruin a high performance aircraft to not use a constant speed propeller on it and he don't approve our plane if it is equipped with a el-cheapo two blade fixed wood prop.
I don't agree with the inspector. How is "high performance" defined - If its speed, then a properly designed fixed pitch will outrun a CS prop thats normally optimixed for cruise. I lost 5 kts with my MT CS vs. my Great America fixed pitch.

The last part of the statement really troubles me: The aircraft is designed and built to use a wooden prop, but an inspector who is not familiar with the design overrides this and specifies a different propeller. I think I would ask to see their engineering data to support such a major design change!

With all that said, I agree with the inspector, put a CS prop on it.

I hate when I do that!

Waiter
__________________
F16 performance on a Piper Cub budget
LongEZ, 160hp, MT CS Prop, Downdraft cooling, Full retract
visit: www.iflyez.com

Last edited by Waiter : 02-01-2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Brain Damage
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-01-2007, 11:02 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Yes, with a cs or in flight adjustable prop you lose two things

a few knots on the top speed
the need for longer runways

heck with what the books claddify as high performance - to the everyday pilot, wether it "fits" the class or knot - dey is
__________________
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
  #66  
Old 02-01-2007, 04:57 PM
Glos Glos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Roselle, IL
Posts: 252
Default

Lets look at this from a different perspective.

Cons:

Longer take off runs
Shift in W & B
Extra fuel use in the longer take off runs.
Must have higher landing speeds or the nose up “wind brake” will not last as long.
Front seat MAX weight reduced

Pros

Can park the plane in a conventional stance

1. When you deal with the cons you have to live with the airplane, like operating it.

2. When you deal with the pros, you're not even around to see the people
who think you have an unsual airplane and then couldn't give two #*^# worth afterwards. When you park, you usually go home.

And so for those civilians who look at my plane, think it's unusual and "Broken"
who cares, I'm not there

There is enough science in this thread to dispence with the pros so why are we still discussing it. Just so you can park it better.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-01-2007, 05:07 PM
David Clifford's Avatar
David Clifford David Clifford is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Howell, Michigan 48843
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Slade View Post
What bothers me is that Mike has no intention of doing these mods himself. He just seems to want others to think that they're "ok" and "no big deal".

There's nothing wrong with offering up proposals for peer review, thinking outside the envelope or doing calculations on the back of it. Mike doesn't even have an envelope. He just throws this stuff out there for the fun of being shot down and / or because he can't put an idea down once he's picked it up.

I've known people who argue intensely without reason, but keep the argument going until everyone else gets bored with it, then call it a victory. That technique wont work here. I think there's a word for it. I notice that Marc and others that know tend to give up after a while, and I don't blame them. Many experienced builders (Buly, for example) just leave the forum because its not worth the trouble.

Arguing the engineering principals behind a new suggested mod is fine and welcomed (at least by me). Just arguing is a waste of everyone's time and costs the forum good people and their valuable knowledge.
Yes,,,I have noticed that a few of the more knowledgeable builders and flyers rarely post here anymore. It seems to have become more of a personal "blog" around here lately.
__________________
Dave Clifford
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-01-2007, 07:46 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

mmmm glos

pros

reduced chance of prop strike during take off and landing

no shift in flying W&B
Current limit on cozy seems to be 440, good luck fitting 440 into one

cmon - heh heh heh the fuel?
__________________
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
  #69  
Old 02-01-2007, 10:24 PM
Clutch Cargo's Avatar
Clutch Cargo Clutch Cargo is offline
w/ Spinner and Paddlefoot
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cape Coral, FL
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waiter View Post
I don't agree with the inspector. How is "high performance" defined - If its speed, then a properly designed fixed pitch will outrun a CS prop thats normally optimixed for cruise. I lost 5 kts with my MT CS vs. my Great America fixed pitch.

The last part of the statement really troubles me: The aircraft is designed and built to use a wooden prop, but an inspector who is not familiar with the design overrides this and specifies a different propeller. I think I would ask to see their engineering data to support such a major design change!

With all that said, I agree with the inspector, put a CS prop on it.

I hate when I do that!

Waiter
FAA Part 61 defines "high performance" aircraft as an aircraft with an engine of more than 200 HP. which requires an endorsement to be able to fly one (legally) in the US of A. Constant speed props and retractable gear need the "complex" endorsement. Floats and more engines require ratings... High performance (legally) may not be high performance and vice versa with NON high performance aircraft if you're talking about speed and acceleration.
__________________
Plans #618, a tub, and everything I need to go to chapter 11 except: TIME! and a cold beer

"I'll do the "thinnin'" around here, Bobba Looey" ! - Quicksdraw McGraw
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-02-2007, 12:43 AM
levansic's Avatar
levansic levansic is offline
Back to square one
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tehachapi, California
Posts: 499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
pros

reduced chance of prop strike during take off and landing
That assumes you can takeoff. The runway accidents in the Canard Pusher newsletter indicate that you have a high probability of prop-strike after the plane flips over at the end of the runway...

Sorry Dust, I'm sticking with Mike Melvill on this one.

-- Len
__________________
-- Len Evansic, Cozy Mk. IV Plans #1283
Do you need a customized Flightline Chair?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 02-02-2007, 04:56 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Cargo View Post
Constant speed props and retractable gear need the "complex" endorsement.
What does this endorsement mean? A marking in logbook?
I guess that if the endorsement is the entry in the logbook for flying a such plane, then I have it since I have flown with a plane with MT Propeller.
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 02-02-2007, 09:49 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Len - no problem here. I am here to learn and to expand knowledge.

A while back i was considered nuts and dangerous by suggesting widening the fuse by three inches.

What changed, Buly widened his by 4.5 inches.

Was that a real change - NO, it just happened that one of the people that had done it was here, the key word is "one" of the people that had done it, not the only one, one of.

I do not suggest things that have not been done, I'll leave that to others.

On your note of changing the angle of the canard - wish you would had not brought that up as when a new thought enters by brain - it will not leave - just keeps a bouncin around.

I LOVE statistics and have based my entire business career on them. One thing that it tells me is this.

We know that many have installed the canard at the wrong angle on the downside, we know that from the instructions from Nat on how to determine if this has been done(elevator deflection during flight) and that it must be corrected and how to do it.

Stats tell me that if it has been done in one direction from the plans, well, then it has been done in the other direction. Anyone heard of a problem from too high an angle of attack?
__________________
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
  #73  
Old 02-02-2007, 10:27 AM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
A while back i was considered nuts and dangerous by suggesting widening the fuse by three inches.
No, it was not the SUGGESTION that caused folks to consider you nuts, it was the suggestion that other folks should do it even though you're NOT doing it, and that you have no data to back up your claims of safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
What changed, Buly widened his by 4.5 inches.
And many others have increased their widths by various amounts as well, long before Bulent did it - from 2" to 12", actually. However, not ONE of them have published their stall test data at various CG positions, weights, or G loading. Until that happens (since the stall behavior is what's at issue with the width increase), this modification MUST be considered unproven. At least by people that understand the concept of data, evidence, and proof. Not necessarily dangerous, in fact probably not (at least at 3" - something I've been saying continuously throughout these discussions over the years), but UNPROVEN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
Stats tell me that if it has been done in one direction from the plans, well, then it has been done in the other direction.
Do you believe that all statistical distributions are symmetric? If so, you don't understand statistics as well as you believe.

No, in fact, due to the way that the canard templates were drawn and made, and the errors that creep into the building process due to the methodology of building and mounting the canard, having too LOW an angle of incidence is by far the more prevalent error. In fact, I have NEVER heard of a Long-EZ or COZY having a Roncz canard that was mounted at too high an angle of incidence, as evidenced by the elevator being reflexed upward substantially during normal cruise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
Anyone heard of a problem from too high an angle of attack?
See above.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 02-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Zeitlin View Post
Do you believe that all statistical distributions are symmetric? If so, you don't understand statistics as well as you believe.
I've answered your points many times before.

As far as my understanding of statistics, you have as you always do, assumed I know nothing.

No, not all distributions are bell shaped, many, if not most, are skewed, one way or another. That is the key word skewed. You assume that since you have never heard of it that it has never happened, I on the other hand, assume that if it can be done, it probably has.

I have built and installed two canards and I could have blown it one way or the other, only way to really know is to fly the plane.

To assume that it has never been done, is well, quite an assumption and not one I would make. I like to assume on the conservative side.
__________________
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
  #75  
Old 02-02-2007, 11:49 AM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
I've answered your points many times before.
You have never answered anything. Writing the same thing with no evidence or factual backup over and over again is not an answer - it is, as Mr. Clifford has pointed out, merely writing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
As far as my understanding of statistics, you have as you always do, assumed I know nothing.
If the shoe fits.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust View Post
..... You assume that since you have never heard of it that it has never happened, I on the other hand, assume that if it can be done, it probably has.
I make no assumptions - I use the evidence I've collected and that has been presented over the 12 years that I have been following these aircraft. Since there have been innumerable instances of canard being installed with a low incidence angle, and no instances of a canard being installed with a high incidence angle, I theorize that the likelyhood of a high incidence angle is extremely low. This also fits with the hypothesis that the design of the templates leads to low incidence angle installations, and not high ones.
__________________
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 01:53 PM.


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