Jump to content
Jon Matcho

New canard aircraft designs in the works

Recommended Posts

This is an interesting (and stunning) 4+1 canard design with visibility for the back seat passengers that is actually flying.  Imagine that... or just click over to www.cobalt-aircraft.com and see for yourself.  

 

The lines and lofting are absolutely beautiful IMHO.  Its powerplant consists of a single Continental 550 piston powerplant, which is the same engine powering some of the Velocity aircraft.

 

The only issue is the price tag makes the Velocity's very attractive price-wise.  Oh well, the overhead of certified aircraft...

post-126731-0-26823400-1414070992_thumb.png


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiny...

 

Yep, after some more research I can't seem to find any news at all.  I read (from a French-to-English machine translated article) that they had a hangar/factory in Canada that they may have abandoned after the prototype #2 may have "crashed".  I couldn't find anything else, and am betting that their funding dried up and they took it back to France to regroup.  

 

FWIW, here's a YouTube video by the CEO of a prototype taxiing around without the canard:  

 

So, as far as dreaming and admiring beautiful lines there's always the Piaggio three lifting surface aircrafts:  http://www.piaggioaerospace.it/en/business-aviation 

 

Oh well, that was fun. 


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* So many lovely concepts, so few aircraft to actually fly :(  I wonder why people even bother entering this field now, so few of them get anywhere near success :(  'Tis truly a field of broken dreams.

 

*wonders if a field of broken dreams is any good to fly over*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

I first saw them 2 or 3 years ago, I'm pretty sure they're vapor-ware. Too bad, it's a neat design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*wonders if a field of broken dreams is any good to fly over*

 

Yeah, but Cobalt went for the gold -- a certified aircraft which is extremely rare for success.  Still, I've been noticing more fuselage molds in development (for reasons yet to be made clear) than ever before.  I'm not entirely sure what this means or will amount to, but I think it's fair to say there are some extremely enthusiastic supporters of canard-type aircraft.  There's just something about them that makes one's head turn, both on the ground (due to their looks) and in the air (looks again, but also their distinct sound and performance).

 

Canards are not the right aircraft for everyone, but they certainly continue to be an option.

 

I'm pretty sure they're vapor-ware. Too bad, it's a neat design.

 

Well, since it has flown 'vapor-ware' may not be the best term, but yes, it is often the case where a new design will show up in CAD, ask for money, maybe build some parts, and then...

 

So, the options are (in no particular order):

  • Takeover a started project
  • Buy/refurbish a flying aircraft
  • Build from plans and parts
  • Build from a kit (Velocity Aircraft)

The plans-parts approach is interesting as this is where I personally feel the new growth is happening, with individuals and small vendors offering parts to accelerate the overall effort.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is, however, recent news in the certified aircraft-having-a-canard-wing space.  Piaggio Aero has announced that they've renamed themselves to Piaggio Aerospace which "reaffirms its commitment to making superbly crafted and innovative aircraft, and underscores its unique positioning to enter new market sectors with distinctive aerospace products."  Looks like they've expanded into unmanned/military applications which is what I gather has become of the Berkut.

 

Piaggio also made an announcement in August introducing their latest and greatest business aircraft, the Piaggio Evo.  

 

I do love hearing the 180s fly overhead in my backyard -- such a different sound than all the others.

post-126731-0-87426700-1414162767_thumb.jpg


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I adjusted this topic's title to accommodate other canard designs.

The e-Go is another current canard aircraft design, a single-place, that has flown.

post-126731-0-10450700-1414165848_thumb.jpg


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also Apollo Canard which offers some very well thought-out information.  This project appears to have not yet left the drawing board, but the information provided is quite good IMO.  Extra points too for not including several model options, glass panel super deluxe, heads up display, flight training program, etc.

 

63.jpg

 

I am rooting for this one to evolve into a prototype, proof of plans, etc.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra points too for not including several model options, glass panel super deluxe, heads up display, flight training program, etc.

Which brings me to the Raptor design project (albeit beautiful CAD/modeling work).

 

This particular project highlights what I consider to be a recipe for failure.  While the design may be sound, the business model is entirely insufficient (and one that has a proven failure rate time and time again) where the thought is to announce pricing and collect deposits before a flying aircraft and/or kits are available.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous "raptor" is not to be confused with the kit being designed and built by Keith Murphy of Raptor Air Works (unfortunate that the two have essentially the same name).

 

This Raptor is a design based on the Rutan VariEze but incorporates a steel tube structure surrounded by a composite skin.  I am interested in seeing how the weights go, but this, so far, appears to have reasonable expectations with a reasonable price tag.  


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the no-way-it's-ever-going-to-work-business-model category we cannot leave out the Infinity 1.  

 

They (James, the "Pres/CEO/CTO/CFO/Chairman") are taking $1,000 deposits and have only $3,000,000 "to go, so if you hit the lottery, don't forget us :-)".

 

Infinity happens to be the same company that makes one of the most popular stick grips in the business.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another available aircraft is the Bateleur from RMT Aviation, which is a very unique canard design providing great visibility for the pilot and reducing foreign object damage with the pusher prop being above the main wing area.

Andre, the CEO, wrote me recently:
 

Hi Jonathan

I am sorry for the delay in answering your inquiry. We are currently in negotiations with Texas to open up our new manufacturing facility and world distribution center there. I have attached price lists and technical data for your information. Models other than the certified (FAR 23) version will become available in 10 - 12 month.
Unfortunately no plans for the Bat are sold as everything is fabricated in molds. Only ready built or kits are available.

Best regards
Andre


Expect to pay over US$100,000 depending on the model and options selected.

post-126731-0-02397600-1414170157_thumb.jpg


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioned in the first post was Velocity Aircraft, a canard kit manufacturer in business since 1984. Velocity has shown a gradual and continual improvement to their models, with the latest being a twin-pusher. Although only one has been built, several other models remain available today.

 

120830vtwin-top.jpg?w=640&h=329&as=1


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mentioned in the first post was Velocity Aircraft, a canard kit manufacturer in business since 1984. Velocity has shown a gradual and continual improvement to their models, with the latest being a twin-pusher. Although only one has been built, several other models remain available today.

This isn't true anymore, there are several, in fact one of the non-factory airplanes recently had an accident at Sebastian.

 

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/single-engine-aircraft-slid-runway-sebastian

  • Like 1

---

Brett Ferrell

Velocity XL/FG

Cincinnati, OH

http://www.velocityxl.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another design concept in search of investment, the SkyShark project, a "twin engine four seat all carbon composite kit plane."

post-126731-0-09563900-1414250374_thumb.png


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The previous plane reminds me of the Aceair Aeriks 200, another beautiful tandem seating plane that flew but just never made it beyond that.  You can find a previous discussion of the Aeriks 200 here.

post-126731-0-07573100-1414254621_thumb.jpg


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also Apollo Canard which offers some very well thought-out information.  This project appears to have not yet left the drawing board, but the information provided is quite good IMO.  Extra points too for not including several model options, glass panel super deluxe, heads up display, flight training program, etc.

 

63.jpg

 

I am rooting for this one to evolve into a prototype, proof of plans, etc.

Interesting, too bad they didn't think to incorporate Steve Wright's excellent idea of staggering the seats to give better shoulder room. I have about 1300 hours of CFI work in C-152s and after that I'm a very big fan of tandems or wide cockpits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, too bad they didn't think to incorporate Steve Wright's excellent idea of staggering the seats to give better shoulder room.

 

If this were plans, or even a kit, it wouldn't be that hard to make staggered seating happen.  Still, this Apollo design is quite roomy at 45.5".  Personally, and even in a car, I prefer my passenger right beside me.  You're right though, staggered seating can really open things up with just 6" of stagger.

 

Passengers tend not to like tandem seating, unless they *really* like flying IMO.


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the true credit for staggered seating firmly goes to our Patron Saint - Mr. Rutan. He first mentioned it quite some years ago IIRC. It's advantages are actually twofold - First, it allows you to make a narrower side by side fuselage without sacrificing comfort or elbow room - so less forward surface area.

Secondly, and this is something only an instructor can appreciate - it allows you to watch and monitor the student without their direct knowledge. Being able to see a students face and actually what he/she is looking at as they are doing something is actually quite beneficial. In a regular side-by-side arrangement you can't really do this without being obvious which in turn causes a reaction from the student and or makes the student nervous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the true credit for staggered seating firmly goes to our Patron Saint - Mr. Rutan. He first mentioned it quite some years ago IIRC.

 

I recall knowing of that as well, but not sure where/how, and for what airplane.  Steve Wright had Burt sit in his plane to give him a 'tour', which would have been nice to be a fly on the firewall for that.

 

 

It's advantages are actually twofold - First, it allows you to make a narrower side by side fuselage without sacrificing comfort or elbow room - so less forward surface area.

 

That's an excellent point.  I think we often get lost in what these canards were all about -- fast, efficient, cross-country machines.  Widening, lengthening, retracts, etc. introduces weight and drag, requiring bigger engines.

 

 

 

Secondly, and this is something only an instructor can appreciate - it allows you to watch and monitor the student without their direct knowledge. 

 

True, and I just learned something:  according to the US FAA a CFI/II CAN provided and receive compensation for flight instruction in an Experimental Aircraft.  You only cannot charge for use of the aircraft itself.  

 

This modification would be very doable, with the question being "from where do you start?"  Widening a Long-EZ/E-Racer (or Apollo) or narrowing a Cozy IV/Cozy III.  I might start with the Cozy III plans (Long-EZ gear/weights), incorporate the Cozy IV improvements (landing gear mount design), and reduce the width so that it is a "true" 2-place+baggage aircraft.  

 

How's that for making it sound easy?  :)


Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall knowing of that as well, but not sure where/how, and for what airplane.

 

True, and I just learned something:  according to the US FAA a CFI/II CAN provided and receive compensation for flight instruction in an Experimental Aircraft.  You only cannot charge for use of the aircraft itself.

Catbird and Boomerang have staggered seating.

 

With respect to instruction (and this has affected folks who believe that they're legal to get instruction in VE's or LE's), in order the be able to instruct in an aircraft it MUST have full dual flight controls. See:

 

http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-Policy/Regulatory-Brief-FAA-issues-new-interpretation-of-dual-controls

 

Since the Stagger-EZ (and other staggered EZ type aircraft) do NOT have full dual controls, they are not legal for instruction. One would have to not only install a stick, but rudder pedals as well. As the article states, you DON'T need dual brakes, however.

 

I did my IFR training in my COZY MKIV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually to do it right an instructor should get a LODA or Letter of Deviation Authority from his local FSDO if conducting transition training for hire. Hopefully I'll be getting mine approved for Gyroplanes soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually to do it right an instructor should get a LODA or Letter of Deviation Authority from his local FSDO if conducting transition training for hire. Hopefully I'll be getting mine approved for Gyroplanes soon.

That's only required if you want to rent the plane for transition training - not for the instructor. No LODA is required to do training in a dual control E/AB aircraft if you do not charge for the use of the aircraft. Since most folks with E/AB aircraft aren't CFI's, they can't charge for their time helping folks transition into type. But with the LODA, they can charge for the use of their aircraft.

 

Which is why, _IF_ I was a CFI and was going to train folks in my aircraft, I would charge $150/hr. for my time, but the plane would be free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the wording is that you only require a LODA if you are going to charge for the use of the aircraft in addition to your rate as an instructor.

Considering that we're talking about gyros and canards, there aren't many instructors out there that could provide such training, so an hourly rate that's above the "Cessna rate" would be reasonable for me. I'm also not sure who would audit such details and say, for example, "you can't charge $75/hour when instructors in that flight school only get $40/hour." As a student I would have no problem paying more per hour of instruction for such specialized training.

Another perspective is that if I were to find a flight instructor willing to provide training in MY airplane, they would not require a LODA since it is not their airplane. Agree?

(Only after writing all this did I see Marc's post.)

Edited by Jon Matcho
Mention Marc's post

Jon Matcho :busy:
Canard Zone Member & Administrator
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Long-term:  Building a Cozy Mark IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information