Tandem Canards?

[aadamson]

So, I'm just curious, are there any tandem canards in any form of commercial or mass production? A form that you could purchase as a kit to complete. Maybe something with molded parts, etc?

 

Just curious, it seems all the tandem companies have gone the way of the dodo bird. I know you can do 4 seaters, I'm curious of 2 seat tandem kits?

 

Thanks in advance,

Alan

[Jon Matcho]

Alan, all that I have ever been aware of have failed to sustain their business models:

• Berkut
• Aeriks
• Bateleur

I don't hear much about the Bateleur, but it was featured on Bruce Sturgill's DVD he recently put out.

[aadamson]

Alan, all that I have ever been aware of have failed to sustain their business models:

• Berkut
• Aeriks
• Bateleur

I don't hear much about the Bateleur, but it was featured on Bruce Sturgill's DVD he recently put out.

Jon,

 

Thanks for replying to this thread as well ...

 

Ah, well, it was worth a shot... Looks like the last time the Berkut was made was in the early 2000's and no more... Oh, well, guess the kit market for 2 seat tandems isn't very large ...

 

Alan

[Waiter]

I believe the "Speed Canard" was made in Germany. This is a production that looks like a rounded body LongEZ

 

Waiter

[Jon Matcho]

The SpeedCanard was also certified for sale in the U.S. -- for 3x the price of a GOOD Long-EZ -- but then went out of business a couple years later.

 

And you're absolutely right -- it should be on the list.

[argoldman]

You are forgetting the original "real" tandem wing aircraft, the quickie,

Q-2(00) and the Dragonfly.

 

Of these, since the Quickie company is no longer with us, only the dragonfly (originally a plans made craft) survives under the wing of a company. I may be mistaken, but I believe that a South African company is producing parts for the D-fly (fuselages, etc). If you look, you can probably get a hold of one of the original Task made fuselage kits.

 

I heard that the new owners of the design are looking to make it a 4 place.

[Jon Matcho]

Yes, the Quickie... and still popular, as evident with a story on a Q-200 in the current Kitplanes magazine. But... no Quickie was ever a "tandem canard", which is the real reason it was not included in the list.

 

I wouldn't mind having one though!

[argoldman]

Yes, the Quickie... and still popular, as evident with a story on a Q-200 in the current Kitplanes magazine. But... no Quickie was ever a "tandem canard", which is the real reason it was not included in the list.

 

I wouldn't mind having one though!

My misreading. I thought by tandem canard, you meant tandem wing, not seating arrangements.

[Jon Matcho]

Rich, which type of Quickie did you build? What became of it? I hope I'm not opening any old wounds...

[argoldman]

Rich, which type of Quickie did you build? What became of it? I hope I'm not opening any old wounds...

NOT only opening, but pouring salt in the gaping wound!!!

 

I built a Dragonfly Mk II-H (inboard hoop gear taildragger) over a period of 20 years. It was powered by a Diamond Midwest (nee Norton) Rotary with an Airmaster C/S electric prop.

 

After 2 years and 100 hours of flight, I made a forced landing, just north of Peoria IL secondary to a partial engine stoppage (work slowdown)

D-flys dont really like to land in small areas, especially with a 45 mph tail wind.

 

I lived, with nary a scratch, the plane didn't. That happened 3 or 4 years ago.

 

The remains sit in my hanger, more and more in the shadow of the growing Aerocanard. Soon, I will think of the final disposition.

[Jon Matcho]

The happy ending to the story sounds well underway. Just don't graft any part of the old plane into your new one.

[argoldman]

Just don't graft any part of the old plane into your new one.

 

Only the engine

[RGlos]

Rich

 

Dragonfly!

 

I didn't know anybody in our area had one. Too bad on the mishap.

 

What did it fly like? Speed, handling etc.

 

Rick

[argoldman]

Rich

 

Dragonfly!

 

I didn't know anybody in our area had one. Too bad on the mishap.

 

What did it fly like? Speed, handling etc.

 

Rick

Rick,

 

Thanks for the condolences.

 

The plane flew very well and the hours spent in it were most enjoyable.

 

I cruised at about 145 Mph at about 5.5 GPH with either my honey of 40 years, another pax or empty seat next to me. The sensitivity of the elevator disappeared shortly after starting to fly. One thing I did notice was because of the seating position, similar to Cozy, In turns your body does not sense the G forces nearly as much as in standard seating.

 

About the only thing I didn't like was the lack of baggage room. With GIS (girl in side) and me in the 'fly, there was little room for much more than a toothbrush. I did have some luggage space over the wing, however W&B restrictions severely limited it's use.

 

Aft loading that plane reminded me of the mechanical bulls which were popular years ago.

 

I can't speak highly enough of composite construction (similar to Cozy's), as I am convinced that this combined with seat angle (and utilization of Temper foam-like material) is the reason I can speak at all.

[RGlos]

Thanks Rich

 

The Dragonfly was one of my first building choices but I finally wound up with a Long EZ and I'm happy with with it.

 

Just finished some paint touch up over an Imron original coat. It was suggested I use a single part paint and they recommended DuPont Centari.

It went on great and was nearly a perfect match.

 

 

Rick

[argoldman]

Had the cozy been available when I started the D-fly, I probably would have built it. I chose the 'fly because of the side by side seating. (wife says she sees the back of my head too often.

[Jack Morrison]

Rich

That is why I chose the E racer. Unfortunately, my wife does not like flying small AC. Although, I might get her into the AC wnen I get it back in the air in a couple of weeks, keep my fingers crossed.

 

Jack E Racer 113

[Delta-Dart]

Hi all,

 

no problem, I can help you te get a two seat canard.

 

Maybe its more then your needs.

 

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2125

 

 

Regards

 

Mike

[A1V8A2]

How about this thing?

 

http://www.InfinityAerospace.com/inf1kit.htm

 

Looks pretty cool.

[Marc Zeitlin]

How about this thing?

 

http://www.InfinityAerospace.com/inf1kit.htm

 

Looks pretty cool.

Ah. Another newbie.

[TMann]

Ah. Another newbie.

How can you tell?

[Lynn Erickson]

How about this thing?

 

http://www.InfinityAerospace.com/inf1kit.htm

 

Looks pretty cool.

thats vapor ware, that was started on before there was vapor and now it will be only a matter of time before the foam used on the project has turned into vapors. keep watching for it to be completed and hold your breath or you to will inhale some of those vapors given off from the project.

[A1V8A2]

Haha, yes I am new. It's a nice looking design, is it no good?

[mfryer]

Haha, yes I am new. It's a nice looking design, is it no good?

What they are trying to tell you is that the plane does not exist and probably never will.

 

All to often we see great looking designs, drawing, renderings and but never an actual working prototype.

[TMann]

All to often we see great looking designs, drawing, renderings and but never an actual working prototype.

Actually in this case a prototype was built. The failure point to effectivly bring it to market centers around the lack of funding to produce the molds.

 

Given the economy, I would have to say that you could start a Long-EZ today and have it complete prior to the Infinity-1 reaches full production.