chasingmars Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Ron Springer said: Could the same thing be said about canard aircraft? They have been around for over 100 years and they have not risen to the top as the preferred configuration. Is that because they aren't much better? Stall resistance and aerodynamic efficiency is not a big deal? Or, could there be other factors? Actually, exactly the same thing can be said for canards. While I love them, and this is a canard forum, it would be wise for us to remember that sometimes that's a partly emotive decision. There are many who sing the praises of canard efficiency when it comes to having two lifting surfaces and no downforce surface, but notably abscent is rational discussion of the true magnitude of the downforce in cruise on conventional aircraft, which is less than usually cited in comparisons, and moreover, the necessary decalage for stall resistance does negative things to the ability of the main wing to generate maximum lift, and without heroic measures, prevents use of flaps, generating high landing speeds in turn making designs possibly carry more wing area than they might otherwise need. The distribution of lift with the canard makes it more difficult to get a high aircraft efficiency factor / best span loading distribution and this is complicated by the relatively higher coefficient of lift the canard operates at relative to the main wing to maintain that stall resistance. Yes, there are advantages, mostly in medium-high (relative to piston GA a/c) speed cruise and stall resistance that are constrained to relatively long paved runways and are light enough that sophisticated flap systems aren't economic in the first place (i.e. the Cozy/Long mission). There are also disadvantages, and, as is fairly unsurprising given the way aerodynamics tends to work, overall efficiency is close to a wash, and if it weren't, a 3-surface (hey, back on topic, the subject design is a 3-surface! ) might have both beat by a smidge anyhow due to the ability to independantly minimize trim drag across a range of airspeeds. As Heinlein said best: TANSTAAFL. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL) Quote Craig K. Cozy IV #1457 building chapter seven! http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/chasingmars/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMann Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Ron Springer said: Or, could there be other factors? It just takes time. Logic doesn't factor in here, marketing does. People usually do a 'jaw drop' when you say you are building a plane from plans. It gets worse when they figure out you don't know what end the wing goes on. Same deal with the rotary. Everyone knows that the piston engine has been around since steam power became a reality. They are comfortable with this power plant and are resistant to change. Right now, it appears obvious to most everyone that a reciprocating engine is extremely low-old-tech but what is the cost to re-tool? Tough enough for the auto industry much less aviation. The rotary is a viable power plant. For a realistic appraisal check out Real World Solution. Tracey has enough hours on his rotary to provide accurate information (vs. opinion.) Quote T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18 Velocity/RG N951TM Mann's Airplane Factory We add rocket's to everything! 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Zeitlin Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 Ron Springer said: Could the same thing be said about canard aircraft? Absolutely. Ron Springer said: They have been around for over 100 years and they have not risen to the top as the preferred configuration. Is that because they aren't much better? Yup. Craig explained it well. Not only aren't they much better, they're not "better" overall, at all. SOME things are better, some are worse. Overall, pretty much a wash. Ron Springer said: Stall resistance and aerodynamic efficiency is not a big deal? Stall resistance can be achieved in conventional configurations as well - go try a Glastar. The one I flew acts pretty much like a COZY with the stick full aft. The aero efficiency (all other things being equal) is better for a canard, but all things are NEVER equal. In real life, the conventional configuration has a minuscule advantage, and as Craig points out, the three surface aircraft has a theoretical advantage over the canard and conventional. Small, though. Very little of this is measurable in real life, and since the accident rate of canards is not substantially different from the rest of the homebuilt/GA market, it's obvious that whatever safety advantage canards are supposed to have is theoretical and/or ephemeral, at best. Ron Springer said: Or, could there be other factors? There are ALWAYS other factors :-). Quote Marc J. Zeitlin Burnside Aerospace marc_zeitlin@alum.mit.edu www.cozybuilders.org copyright © 2024 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytesmith Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 It is worth noting that the reason no rotary has won the LeMans endurance race since that famous race in the early 90's is that rotary engines were outlawed from that race the following year. Not unlike what happened at Indy when AJ Foyt was just a burned-out-ignition-wire from victory with 2 laps to go -- his turbine-powered machine was so far ahead of the piston-engine pack that they changed the rules the following year to prevent turbine-powered machines from competing in the Indy 500. The fact that rotary engine technology has not yet permeated GA has more to do with inertia than with technology reality ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytesmith Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 It should be noted that the reason we have not seen a rotary win another LeMans since the race in the early 90's is that the LeMans race organizers changed the rules after that race to prohibit rotaries from running in the race. How convenient for their piston engines ... Similar to the way the Indy 500 organizers changes the rules to prevent turbines from running at Indy after Parnelli Jones' car beat all of the piston cars easily for 197 out of 200 laps (he had lapped the entire field by then), and failed to win only because a minor bearing broke. The piston folks simply legislate away the competition ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Back to the topic of the Aceair Aeris 200. Here are some randomly specs and performance on the Aceair Aeris 200 from Jane's "Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft 2002-2003", page 441: Wingspan: 26ft 3 in Length: 21'+ Wing Area: 66.7 sq ft Ailerons: 3.23 sq ft Foreplanes: 6.46 sq ft Tailplane: 11.41 sq ft Elevators: 4.63 sq ft Weights: Empty - 662 lb Payload w max fuel - 441 lb MAx TO Wt - 1278 lb Max Wing Loading: 19.16 lb/sq ft Performance (Estimated with AE 110) VNE = 200 kt Criuse = 160 kt @ 11480 ft VA = 140 kt Stall Clean: 61 kt Stall w flaps - solo: 50 kt rate of climb: 1560 ft/im at SL, 840 ft/min @ 11480 ft TO Run at S/L = 950 ft TO + 50ft obs at SL = 1475 ft Landing at SL 885', 1935' over 50 ft obs Range = 877 nm Endurance at max cruise (w 45 min res) 5h 45 min In my opinion that paints a picture of a pretty nice airplane I'd like to have for fun flying around and cross country duty. The foreplane has flaps but the elevator is on the tailplane. The power plant specified is a Mid-West AE 110 rotary Engine with 105 hp, driving a 3 blade prop. A Rotax 912 ULS is also listed as an optional engine. Equipment also lists a ballistic parachute behind the passenger seat. Pretty Sweet if you asked me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BugStomperQ Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Is this what you are looking for? Jonny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I think the Aceair is sexier than [name your sexyist icon**]..and wish the guy from Aceair manufacturing who posted here at the start would throw us a bone for crying out loud about their engine problem. At least some kind of update!! It wouldn't replace my screamin' 540 Cozy...but I would LOVE to build it and have in my hanger to fly for short hops. Its a beautiful looking airplane in that steel paint color. Very "fighter-esqe" [sp]. **no, Dame Edna does not count...except to Ozzy..yeech. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 So I will post here about the Aericks200, and not infringe on wolfmans Berkut thread anymore. Heres a glamour shot of the flying bird, parked as part of an exhibit. Its great to see the people around it, as it gives us scale. I tried to upload a file of it flying, t.o. & landing etc, but no go. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cozy Girrrl Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Wow, look at the size of that thing, for some reason I thought it would be a lot smaller? Maybe that is part of why it has poor performance, put a 540 in it! Quote CG Products www.CozyGirrrl.com Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B Turbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 More power ogh ogh ogh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMann Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 Great job as far as the Photoshop execution. Quote T Mann - Loooong-EZ/20B Infinity R/G Chpts 18 Velocity/RG N951TM Mann's Airplane Factory We add rocket's to everything! 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10, 14, 19, 20 Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 TMann said: Great job as far as the Photoshop execution. You dont like it just because it looks better than a longeze... It's real, I have footage of it flying... and footage of the test pilot beside it talking about his flights. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Nalevanko Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Could you please post the footage somewhere and let us all know? Thanks Blue skies, Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I dont know how to post video's. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Can you put the videos on youtube? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Can you put the videos on youtube? That worked out pretty great. Go to Aeriks200 on Youtube and that will get you to the two videos I posted. Notice the room at his elbows and shoulders on the inside cam Test Pilot vid. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vortal Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 its' a very cool aircraft you will find more spec here on the website http://www.over-flyer.ch/aeriks200/aeriks-contact.htm the problem is that there seem to be nothing moving since the assets of Aceair (the original company who developed the aeriks) has been sold to over-flyer... the latest news is the air show in Germany in 2007... (the photo with the guy checking in the engine compartment in Edge's post) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 That's a nice coffin, but it looks to me like a funeral. I'm thinking widen it to a side by side, move the engine outboard to the wing, and add another engine on another wing to maintain symmetry. Ouch, that carbon fiber is expen$$$ive. I'll never understand why in the heck does anyone want to take the wings off and pull their airplane around on a trailer. Maybe it's a European thing? - hanger rent is some of the most inexpensive real estate where I'm from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 gontek said: That's a nice coffin, but it looks to me like a funeral. I'm thinking widen it to a side by side, move the engine outboard to the wing, and add another engine on another wing to maintain symmetry. Ouch, that carbon fiber is expen$$$ive. I'll never understand why in the heck does anyone want to take the wings off and pull their airplane around on a trailer. Maybe it's a European thing? - hanger rent is some of the most inexpensive real estate where I'm from. Gontek. Sized like a coffin? Widen it?...and destroy the design? You nailed it in your 2nd sentence. The trouble is...YOU're THINKING. The BEAUTY is IT'S FLYING!!!..and it's a GREAT LOOKING aircraft. AND it's got plenty of room in it. AND it's a 3LS machine. Guy's like you are a dime a dozen...always complaining you're hungry, with a loaf of bread under your arm. Since you want a twinn...go see Velocities new bird they are cooking up. Of course then you will complain about the huge pricetag. And yea...YOU KNOW THIS, I don't have to tell you...we got it relatively GREAT here in the States, in Europe the want to trailer...it's like a near necessity. They also want diesels..it's just the way they need to feed. The Aeriks IS a great bird, I hope they can iron out the powrplant issue and get a little more speed, but hey, these Swiss guys blew the doors off, IMNSHO. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I agree and you know me too well. It is very beautiful, and I can't wait to see the video. I am just being pessimistic today I guess. The Coffin being the website, however I hope they can resurrect this kit, but the odds are more against them to succeed with their business than me to build an airplane. I really really like this design. And if they need diesels, the WAM 120 has a nice feature article in EAA Sport, right after an amazing Cozy, the owner of which flew it from the Middle East to OSH. Or the SMART Suprex. I know I'm a great monday morning quarterback, everyone does it, I can use my imagination for what could be, even when things are going well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Well Said Gontek, and to be without imagination, we'd be still farting around with rocks and sticks. Keep imagining! There was a thread on one of these forums about wanting a six place Cozy with twinn engines about 2 years ago...Now Velocity is DOING it. Pretty dang cool. Downside/ pretty danfg expensive. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Innova Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 gontek said: I agree and you know me too well. It is very beautiful, and I can't wait to see the video. I am just being pessimistic today I guess. The Coffin being the website, however I hope they can resurrect this kit, but the odds are more against them to succeed with their business than me to build an airplane. Yes and no. Consider that the new owners probably picked it up for a song. All the development costs and tooling should already be paid for by the previous company. With a flying prototype, their main costs are going to be marketing and a few laborers (initially) to produce kits. As long as an aircraft company doesn't go bankrupt following a crash, or after screwing a lot of their customers (both of which ruin the design's reputation), post-bankruptcy is a good place to start. All those expensive start up costs/debt are erased, and hopefully, you have a good design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I have designed a couple of aircraft, back in my aerospace days, but they fall into the category of DARPA projects that never make it off paper. I have a feel for roughly how many airplanes need to be sold in order to make a project break even, and how much this stuff costs, before a scent of a profit ever wafts into the factory. I admit know almost nothing of Aceair and their new owners - I just know the odds are against them. I sincerely hope they beat the odds, because that is one beautiful bird. I like the build from scratch - buy the plans business model more than kits, but that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karoliina Posted November 24, 2008 Share Posted November 24, 2008 Cozy Girrrl said: Wow, look at the size of that thing, for some reason I thought it would be a lot smaller? Maybe that is part of why it has poor performance, put a 540 in it! I wouldn't call that poor performance. If the specifications are at all true, it is a very good design in terms of efficiency. 160 kt is fast taken in account the low engine power and low stall speed (stall speed - cruise speed has its limitations). It is also three surface design which can take advantage of flaps on main wing. And from this tandem design, the rear occupant can actually see something. The design seems to be in harmony and putting a O-540 on place of the small engine it was designed for, would essentially ruin the design. Power loading and wing loading are not in a good balance in many experimental aircraft (the design is not very optimized when e.g. the engine is total overkill) but in this case the power loading and wing loading are both quite reasonable - the design exhibits high climb performance while not overdoing the power loading - the aircraft have multiple parameters which affect their performance at the same time, and changing just bigger engine usually will not help (it helps some to some extent, but is not the whole solution), but will rather hamper the sophistication potentially achieved in aerodynamic design otherwise by adding weight and thus cruise wing loading and cruise angle of attack over the optimum value the airfoil selection was made for etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.