Phoenix Canard

[Edge 513]

Well, I heard from another Canardian that there was a new Kitplane canard coming around the bend...had some neat features- looked different with no stabilizer/rudders at the wingtips and seating for up to five...so....

Then Ted emailed me about it...said they were looking for capital to take it to the 'next level'...said it was neat looking.

So I looked it up today.

My email response-

Wellll.

I am dissapointed. I just found the website you mentioned.

The Phoenex airplane appears to be [from the drawings and pictures on their website] just a near [if not the EXACT] Velocity widebody fuselage with some fancy rudder booms and rudders that change the wingtips to little winglets.

I bet the wings are the EXACT Velo wings as well.

They claim as a marketing ploy- that the Velocity is dangerous in cross wind lamndings...did you know that? I wasnt aware of that? They feel actual near centerline ruuders are the superior setup.

Very interesting.

[The Cozy is a dream to fly and slip]. They are really looking for yaw. Saying yaw is king.A canard without sufficient yaw is a scary thing. Yawn.

I think theres a legal war a-brewin' between those manufactures. That might give some investors pause in considering investing in a legal bru-haha. Espeshally with it being a near clone to the Velo. Nice looking enuf airplane though [the new rudders are a catchy detail].

What think?

[emteeoh]

Wouldn't the rudder placement reduce yaw control? I would expect the rudders at the wingtips would be further from the CG and thus have more leverage.

 

When I went to the Velocity factory and flew in the XL, the factory pilot said that they don't recommend that you slip. If I recall correctly, he said that the plane doesn't have a lot of aileron travel... Nonetheless, the plane felt like it slipped fine to me, and he didn't say it was never OK. Also, I'm almost certainly mangling the explanation he gave me; there was alot going on, and I was having a good time in my first flight in a canard. I was a little distracted.

 

I certainly hope velocity doesn't waste time on lawsuits. They're expensive, and would just distract them from what they're supposed to be doing. They've also got a decade or so headstart on phoenix... A good reputation is worth more than so-called intellectual property on a wing design that was arguably ripped off of Burt Rutan anyhow.

[Richard Riley]

Yaw is driven by having rudders AFT of CG, not just away from CG. The farther aft, the smaller the surface can be and have the same authority.

 

Gus McLeoud's velo had booms like what you're desrcibing

 

 

[FreedomAviation]

Thanks for bringing up the topic, and hopefully letting me discuss a few points of interest on our Phoenix aircraft.

 

First off, I think a bit too much was made over the inboard vertical placement/yaw control issue. We have had our factory pilot fly both the XL and obviously our aircraft, and a big note was the upgraded yaw control due to the inboard, and dual acting rudder setup. An aircraft can be landed with no rudder at all, but the more authority and available yaw you have in a crosswind, obviously the better. The inboard verticals/rudders provide more yaw than a factory XL.

 

Secondly, Although shaped the same, the fuselage on the Phoenix aircraft is just over 2 feet longer, with a wider, taller and longer cabin. This is not simply a carbon-fiber XL, it is a much larger aircraft. Aerodynamics haven't changed much in the last few hundred years, and a 4 place, side by side canard, is going to look amazingly similar to another 4 place, side by side canard. Our aircraft is no doubt larger, in useful (1500), in fuel capacity (125) and in overall wingspan (34' 5").

 

We encourage anybody doubting the size of the aircraft, to come take a look, see for yourself, and honestly, tell us what you like, and what you don't like on the aircraft. Without feedback, planes end up the same boring, and uncomfortable shape/size/functionality.

 

The airfoil on the main wing is similiar to the XL, which as you continue down, was borrowed, and borrowed, and borrowed. The canard airfoil however is different.

 

This aircraft is a completely molded and jigged aircraft, allowing for a more repeatable build and parts that can interchange. This aircraft has been in the work for 3-4 years and again, is not simply a velocity-isk plane.

 

I appreciate and look forward to fellow flyers inputs, reactions and concerns.

 

Thanks.

[Edge 513]

Heres some pictures - you see what you you think. Looks pretty similar to that one Richard.

 

I think it looks very nice- I do like the inboard rudders and the small winglets from an aesthetic aspect. I still think the windshield and nose top and squarer sides make this and the Velo's come off decidedly station-wagonish to me...but others swoon in admiration. I like that the Cozy looks sleeker [and that does copnitribute to it going faster]. With a longer nose, the Cozy looks even sleeker yet.

I guess there are no issues with this plane and the absence of lower wingtip winglets as fences. More and more I hear guys [accomplished fliers] saying the lower winglets on a Cozy are pretty useless.

I need more data- on that.

Anyway- neat looking new Phoenix canard.

If they have opened a legal pandoras box in their apparent similarity to the Velo, uh-oh...If theres no issue, good.

I like it.

I wonder at the increased weight entailed in the rudders change?

But at I think 200k, I will try and make do with my Cozy.

[Edge 513]

Hey....Look what I found!

[Hans S]

It also needs an IO-550 according to wiki.

[soloflight]

To each his own.

 

I don't like the way the phoenix looks it has to many vertical planes.

[Richard Riley]

The shape isn't patented. They can copy it all day long.

 

However - it's going to be EXPENSIVE to bring a kit to market from scratch. Count on a couple of million. It would be cheaper to buy the whole Velocity company.

[raiki]

Yaw is driven by having rudders AFT of CG, not just away from CG.

True to a point. The theory behind the EZ rudders is they act as a drag brake as well as well as a rudder. For instance the rudder delection causes yaw as normal and the effect is relative to the distance aft of the cg as you suggest. How ever the extra "lift" as such also creates drag. The further OUT the drag, the more the yawing force.

 

Nat wrote about this in newsletter 91.

[FreedomAviation]

The shape isn't patented. They can copy it all day long.

 

However - it's going to be EXPENSIVE to bring a kit to market from scratch. Count on a couple of million. It would be cheaper to buy the whole Velocity company.

You are correct. Starting from the bottom up and doing all the tooling/molding/jigging is going to bear a cost in time and money. Thankfully, that phase is all but completely done.

 

The aircraft is at market, and is buildable currently.

 

Thanks.

[Jon Matcho]

It would be cheaper to buy the whole Velocity company.

Too late according to this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24100365/

[FreedomAviation]

I've attached a few flight photographs of our aircraft, as a reference.

 

Unfortunately, most of the better photographs have come shooting up from the ground, instead of air to air.

 

Thanks.

[Phil Kriley]

I've attached a few flight photographs of our aircraft, as a reference.

 

Unfortunately, most of the better photographs have come shooting up from the ground, instead of air to air.

 

Thanks.

I like your plane! I can't afford it, but I like it and wish you success!

[Richard Riley]

You are correct. Starting from the bottom up and doing all the tooling/molding/jigging is going to bear a cost in time and money. Thankfully, that phase is all but completely done.

 

The aircraft is at market, and is buildable currently.

 

Thanks.

Best of luck.

[FreedomAviation]

I like your plane! I can't afford it, but I like it and wish you success!

Thanks for the kind words.

 

We invite anybody to come in for a factory tour, etc. For the time being with only one aircraft, and it being used for dual purpose of testing and market survey, we must schedule demo flights, but simply let us know and we'll be more than happy to show you through the facility.

[Edge 513]

Somehow last night when I posted- I had posted ahead of the manufacturerers first post [as it was not listed last night when I checked] and did not see it until this morning.

I also wish you the best success. Quite an undertaking.

I just wish a little more attempt had been made to have the front end look less like a Velocity. It just DOES, and therefore most everyone is going to automatically be inclined to justify comparing it to a less expensive Velocity. Otherwise its a great looking craft.

I took the liberty of laying back the windscreen, lowering the nose and blacking out the a and b pillars to make it look more airplane like and less car-like. Some would say, no big deal...but I bet many would say it needs this. Hey the front end is a very recognizable brand design consideration. Automakers spend loads to capture the "right" appearance for a new model, as it is the "FACE" of the vehicle. Its YOUR airplane, why look like someone elses?!!

Well, Good on you all!

My .02 =]

[Jon Matcho]

Somehow last night when I posted- I had posted ahead of the manufacturerers first post [as it was not listed last night when I checked] and did not see it until this morning.

That's the forum software in action: The first post by a new user is moderated, but when approved the original time of the post is retained.

[FreedomAviation]

Somehow last night when I posted- I had posted ahead of the manufacturerers first post [as it was not listed last night when I checked] and did not see it until this morning.

I also wish you the best success. Quite an undertaking.

I just wish a little more attempt had been made to have the front end look less like a Velocity. It just DOES, and therefore most everyone is going to automatically be inclined to justify comparing it to a less expensive Velocity. Otherwise its a great looking craft.

I took the liberty of laying back the windscreen, lowering the nose and blacking out the a and b pillars to make it look more airplane like and less car-like. Some would say, no big deal...but I bet many would say it needs this. Hey the front end is a very recognizable brand design consideration. Automakers spend loads to capture the "right" appearance for a new model, as it is the "FACE" of the vehicle. Its YOUR airplane, why look like someone elses?!!

Well, Good on you all!

My .02 =]

You're pretty good at this.

 

Honestly, I have tried unsuccessfully to take some photographs of our aircraft along side an XL to show the differences. We have a much longer, slender nose. The overhead views are decieving because we run a canard with much longer chord. This makes the nose seem shorter relative to the "stub-nose" on the XL.

 

We had an XL on the field here in Fort Pierce for a while, but was never able to get it together to photograph the two side by side. If anybody is in the area, and honestly doesn't mind, I'd really like to photograph both. On the ground, and in the air if possible.

 

We're people too, we like aircraft and enjoy the looks, functionality, and flight feel of the canard. We simply wanted something more than the XL offered, thought of some improvements (in our eyes) and ended up going all the way with a new, larger bird.

 

And yes, I had some difficulty with posting to the forum, as I wasn't aware that users needed to be "ok'ed" prior to posting (i think i replied like 10 times with the same message, and wondered why in the world it wasn't working)

 

 

Thanks.

[DemonFrog]

I will have to agree with the previous posters about the windscreen, it needs to be more sloped, i find a lot of the canards should have their windscreens reshaped. also, with today's fuel prices, a 550 may be asking a bit much? i would rather go with a 200 horse range diesel. However, your payload and range are awesome and i can imagine appeals greatly to small business owners. now if it took a diesel with their aparent 40% increase in effeciency.

1400 X 1.40 1960 that would be some serious range and definite competition to rangemasters like the DA 42 or someone could take less fuel for the same distance and carry more weight. My aviation college student's perspective

[Richard Riley]

A 200 HP diesel for aircraft use would be a nice engine.

 

Do you happen to know of any that are actually for sale? I don't mean an engine in development and are just around the corner. I mean an aircraft diesel engine that I can go trade cash for and put in the back of a truck and drive home.

 

I've been doing this for 18 years now, and the most important rule I've learned is:

 

Never design your developmental aircraft around a developmental engine.

[DemonFrog]

as far as i understand deltahawk is producing their diesel for experimentals already. i could very well be wrong. anyway, i am thinking something more like a q200 for myself.

[Richard Riley]

DeltaHawk says:

 

Experimental aircraft firewall forward kit development is beginning.

 

No indication of how many have been delivered, or how big the backlog is. If I were developing an airplane from scratch I wouldn't use it. County on a Lyc. It the DH comes along someday, great. We almost built a aircraft around the Thuria. Glad it didn't work out, now.

[Lifessamsara]

Isn't the W120 being installed into commercially marketed aircraft now? It's been developed over the last 10 years and has even been placed successfully in a Longez (Bill Allen).

I'd say it was a quiet achiever of the aviation diesels that is low risk. It is a complete firewall fwd/aft solution off the shelf.

I dont know whether they are developing an engine with enough output for a Velo + size aircraft however.

 

Bruce.

[FreedomAviation]

I will have to agree with the previous posters about the windscreen, it needs to be more sloped, i find a lot of the canards should have their windscreens reshaped. also, with today's fuel prices, a 550 may be asking a bit much? i would rather go with a 200 horse range diesel. However, your payload and range are awesome and i can imagine appeals greatly to small business owners. now if it took a diesel with their aparent 40% increase in effeciency.

1400 X 1.40 1960 that would be some serious range and definite competition to rangemasters like the DA 42 or someone could take less fuel for the same distance and carry more weight. My aviation college student's perspective

I too would love a diesel alternative. We've been working with various manufacturers, and as mentioned, nobody has come up with a good, suitable engine of the power needed.

 

Deltahawk needs to sell more of their smaller motors before they'll proceed into the higher HP units, and they're going for certification, which means it'll be a bit longer.

 

I agree 100% about the developmental aircraft, on an unproven engine. This aircraft was designed around something 550 size, 300hp. We do however have open arms towards alternatives.

 

Our honest answer to a non tso'd aircraft engine goes to the automotive world, with a custom built GM engine. More efficient, built properly with the right internals, dual redunant engine sensors, run at low rpm's for maximum durability and economy. More power burning less fuel. However, developments don't just happen overnight, and it is unfortunatly on the side burner at the moment.

 

We've had our aircraft down since early May, installing the steerable nosewheel into the aircraft, fabricating molds/doors, etc. Happy to say it's back on the ground and cruising around. I'll post a few photos here in a bit, as we were out doing ramp testing til it started pouring rain. (gotta love florida). So far, all is good. It's a completely different world, being able to steer without jamming the brakes. Much easier to hold a centerline also

 

Thanks.