Possible new canard

Jon Matcho · June 1, 2005

This was in Kitplanes earlier this year (I forget whether it was plans or a kit). Since the builder/designer went through the trouble to get into Kitplanes, I figured we should cheer him on.

http://www.saci.us/dart.htm

Looking up the N-number, it first flew in 1995. I recall from the Kitplanes listing that it's powered by a VW 2100cc engine.

Jon Matcho · June 1, 2005

This may be of interest to the Long-EZ guys... check out the rear seat instruments in the headrest.

Lifessamsara · April 13, 2006

Hi Jon,

I was just wondering if you were aware of what the latest is with the Dart aircraft? It certainly looks more rounded than the LEz and I believe is using a different construction technique for the fuselarge.

Cheers,

Bruce.

Richard Riley · April 13, 2006

Parrish dart, by Jim Parrish.

About 4 years ago a good friend of mine quit his job and moved to Florida to apprentice on the Dart. The idea was he'd work with Jim on a thunder mustang being built for a client during the day, and in the evenings and weekends work on the dart.

He was there for a couple of months. In that time he figures he did about 2 hours of work on the Dart while he was there. He came back to LA, he's flying a Velocity now.

Lifessamsara · April 13, 2006

Thanks for the update Richard,

Any idea how much airtime it has seen and how it flys?

He is selling the plans for $500 US (that's alot more expensive in AU $s). I can't imagine that people will be willing to fork out the readys for an unproven design with doubtful support.

The design "looks" good, but does it fly well, to what speed and fuel rates, and is it SAFE? Id appreciate your or anyone elses thoughts,

Cheers,

Bruce.

Richard Riley · April 13, 2006

To the best of my knowledge it hasn't flown since the first flight in 95, which ended badly, though it appears to have been largely rebuilt.

(this is the part where people with sense run away)

Lifessamsara · June 14, 2006

Hi Richard,

any other info on the Dart at all? Does anyone know how many hours it racked up before being out of service, or anything of its performance? Is it using the LEz canard/wing combo?

I think the fuse' design looks quite good, but if the whole package doesn't work.............. well.........

Cheers,

Bruce.

Richard Riley · June 14, 2006

It was it's first flight that ended with the crash, so though I don't know how many hours - I suspect it was less than one.

It's not the LEZ wing/canard, it's something else entirely.

Lifessamsara · June 15, 2006

Any idea what caused the accident at all? Stall, engine trouble, heavy landing............? I wonder how the strip molded fuse' held up to the impact?

Any references that I could follow-up to the nature of the accident would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bruce.

Richard Riley · June 15, 2006

Any idea what caused the accident at all? Stall, engine trouble, heavy landing............? I wonder how the strip molded fuse' held up to the impact?

Any references that I could follow-up to the nature of the accident would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bruce.

That's all the information that I have.

Jon Matcho · June 15, 2006

Any idea what caused the accident at all? Stall, engine trouble, heavy landing............?

According to Richard, it's not using the Long-EZ wing or canard. Those are enough variables for me to not consider this design out until there are a half-dozen or so flying. What's its benefit over a Long-EZ anyway? Looks? I gather it's supposed to have a faster build time than a Long-EZ, but I'm not convinced by the pics on the web site.

I wonder how the strip molded fuse' held up to the impact?

There's nothing wrong with this technique for making the fuselage (or turtleback, cowlings, etc...), provided the entire system (glass+epoxy+foam) is built to the same specifications as, say, a Long-EZ. The result can be stronger (or not) than a Long-EZ.

I can understand the motivation behind changing the build technique and/or sequence for a Long-EZ (to build it more quickly), but you're in the warning zone when you start swapping airfoils and playing with all the other variables.

Any references that I could follow-up to the nature of the accident would be appreciated.

AFAICT the accident was not reported to the FAA as I cannot find it in the NTSB database.

If you want to build a tandem canard, check out the Open-EZ.

Richard Riley · June 15, 2006

According to Richard, it's not using the Long-EZ wing or canard. Those are enough variables for me to not consider this design out until there are a half-dozen or so flying. .

There are some risky decisions that a person can make selecting a homebuilt. One of the classics is being the first in line to buy a new kit. Even if the prototype flies fine, a new kit will have unexpected bugs in it that will make it more difficult to build. The early Berkuts had problems with the lower ends of their gear legs. You can count on there being problems like that.

A bad decision is to pick an airplane when the prototype has never flown.

A really bad decision is to pick an airplane where the prototype has flown once and scared the test pilot so badly he won't fly it again. See: Dreamwings. Or the pilot who test flew the "Redbird" modification of the Cessna 177 - "I hope this thing will climb high enough that we can jump out of it."

A really, REALLY bad decision is to pick an airplane when the prototype crashed on it's first flight for reasons that are not well understood and have not been corrected.

Jon Matcho · June 15, 2006

Very good for an afternoon LOL.

Still, these plans continue to be listed in the Kitplanes annual plans directory every year.

Richard Riley · June 15, 2006

I once read something about the early days of the BD-5. I don't know if it's true. It said that the original short wing version was so difficult to fly that the first 4 airplanes had all crashed on takeoff, and 2 of the 4 pilots had been killed.

I read that and thought, OK, what was pilot #4 thinking as he opened the throttle?

It doesn't cost anything to be listed in the Kitplanes guide. If you have a listing and you sell an info-pack, you're in the black already. It's like, it doesn't cost anything to have a website. So you get stuff like this http://www.skywalkerjets.com and this http://www.independentaircraft.com and even this http://www.tronguy.net Having a website doesn't mean you have something that works. Neither does having a listing in a sport plane guide.

satch · June 15, 2006

I watched that skywalkerjets guy's "Test 1/2" video ... first thought that went through my head was "this guy is going to die". I don't really know what else to say ...