Tyson

We are comparing a variety of apples to a variety of oranges. The old CPs (as well as owner's manuals) listed relative efficiency of a variety of FP propellers from different sources (most of which aren't around any longer). Suffice it to say: -CS holds no superiority in cruise vs a properly selected "cruise" FP propeller -FP generally affords the pilot the ability to exceed redline limits imposed on CS propellers (thus FP can utilize a higher horsepower, if the FP pitch is set accordingly). Along this line, top speed could be faster with the FP -at 5kts, a FP propeller set for efficient cruise at 170kts is simply not going to be anywhere near as efficient at producing thrust as a CS propeller set to fine pitch. How much less efficient, I don't know, but significant. Waiter has written on this previously with some apples-apples discussion. Now, practically, who cares. If one limits operation to longer runways, there is no compelling cruise or range consideration that favors using a CS over FP.

I don't know if you're having a bad day Wayne, but obviously thrust moves airplanes, not horsepower. There's that pesky "propeller efficiency" thing to deal with. IMO the only good reason to go CS in a pusher canard would be to improve low airspeed thrust efficiency (i.e. get off the ground sooner). For some people this is a very valid concern, but not really necessary for most. Do you really mean to suggest that your take-off role would be reduced by only ~7% if you had a CS propeller installed?

For those interested in "conventional" type bagging with a regular vacuum pump... Look into the type of system that ACP sells...specifically the nylon vacuum bag tubes with "quick lock" seals. ACP sells bags that are 18" or 36" across. Essentially you create your layup as usual, apply a breather, batting, then slip into the bag. Apply the quick locks to each end of the bag. The quick locks don't leak. Attach the vacuum to the adapter nipple and turn on the vac. The bag is re-usable a few times (depending on how you take care of it). -This system doesn't leak, except maybe around the adapter into the bag (the nipple that goes through the bag). Easy enough to locate and deal with. -This system is easy to do on small flat pieces, adds negligible time, and just a little bit of consumables. -This system is impractical except for those hell bent on weight savings. And if so inclined, seems easier/less messy/more reliable than low vac.

Not exactly hard data, but a simple discussion on this topic: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99494.htm Another discussion on the topic. Of note is the issue of heat 'absorption' issues as related to engine compartment objects as they relate to paint color etc. Perhaps this is why white is a common engine mount color: http://www.sacskyranch.com/paint.htm

I picked up this project locally but unfortunately will never get time to complete it. Included is a tub with the main gear mounted, wheels/axles/brakes, nose gear retract, canard hardware and jig, glass role for the canard caps, epoxy pump, hotwire cutter, nose gear leg. Speed brake is installed and hinged. Some misc Brock hardware included. Also will throw in an old Varieze canopy in frame (Jiran?) if interested. I'm moving soon and don't want to have to move it. Price is $1500 for all, not interested in any offers to buy individual components (plans etc). Great workmanship and a great price. If I have to move it price will go up later. Located 30 minutes south of SLC, UT. PM or respond here with questions. Attached is the only picture I have available for the next week or so.

On a related note, for those interested, take note of the clothing you wear while flying. What you're wearing (or not wearing) in a firery accident may significantly alter your outcome (i.e. life/death). Note that in wintertime we frequently bundle-up in torch material and summer leave our skin exposed with no protection. Generally natural fabrics are most practical and synthetics are to be avoided.

Priceless pearls from NeoTom: "Once the chain departs the cockpit over the pilot's head, you won't need any "wind speed", the prop will come and get it with the sure certainty of the moron-vote finding the Obama Box in November; It WILL happen." If your appreciation of basic physics is any indication of your ability as a social scientist... Rutan suggested in the first place to just open the canopy and jump over the side. Look it up in the Canard Pusher. Per Rutan (and Newton) the aerodynamic loads (i.e. that drag force that would 'slow you down and drag you into the prop') don't really become an issue until you get up to 250mph. Then again what does Rutan know about "sub-sonic" aerodynamics.

To test/disprove Newton's second law.

A picture would help.

To read previous discussions on this and most any other idea you can come up with, check: http://www.maddyhome.com/cozysrch/

This is about $100,000 too much, but good luck to you.

Depends on what you mean by "gentle." Research Ilan Reich's incident of plopping his Cirrus down in the Hudson. The landing gear does little to absorb energy when hitting water. A 26 fpm drop on my rear end with an inch or so of miracle foam to cushion the blow isn't what I'd consider to be a "gentle belly flop."

There is one pilot of an Ez (a Varieze I believe) who bailed out after thinking that the plane was hit (shot) by ground fire. The author recounting the incident stated that the pilot was a veteran and was presumably of sound mind, even though the circumstances were suspect. He lived, I don't know if the prop was turning. I thought I read about this in the CPs, but I can't find the reference. Maybe someone else can substantiate where this story came from.

A quote from the mooneypilots.com site article about the Mooney 20E (you can read the full article on the site for free): "I would like to make a comment from a technical standpoint about the ram air system on the E model. Mooney's marketing department made a big deal about the ram air system back in the '60's--a "poor man's turbocharger" and all that stuff. Talked about how it was a stroke of design genius to offer this primary induction system bypass to give added engine power and better airplane performance when flying in clean air. Bull. There is no way a properly designed primary induction air system should have a 1" hg manifold pressure drop across the filter. I think the ram air system on the E model was simply a bandaid [my emphasis] for a poorly designed primary (filtered) system. If Mooney's powerplant engineers had designed the primary induction air system properly in the first place, they wouldn't have had to incorporate this "ram air" idea. It's bad engineering to require the pilot to open an induction air bypass to get the engine performance he deserves in the first place. And unfiltered air is not good for the engine." From a simple-person's point of view, I do not see many super-fast/efficient planes with ram scoops hanging in the breeze. Thus it might be reasonable to conclude that the drag associated with scoops outweighs any benefit.

This may have come out clear as mud, but here it goes: With the c-jig, you could do this by making the initial drill-through hole (in the jig) 1/4". Then remove the center of the jig (with sufficient depth to lap over the NG30 outer surfaces, about 3.75" or so). Then open up one end of the c-jig to 5/16". Place the jig over the NG30s. Place a 1/4 bolt through the jig and either NG30 (i.e. the side that you are not currently opening up). At this point, the 5/16" opening of the jig should be centered over the 1/4" holes in your NG30s (assuming! that your current 1/4" holes are aligned). After drilling out the first side, remove the jig and open the other end of the "C" to 5/16". Replace the jig over the NG30s, bolt the first NG30 to the jig with a 5/16" bolt, then open up the second NG30 to 5/16". The idea here is to create a jig to open up the 1/4" holes to 5/16" without making out-of-round holes while keeping things as square as they currently are. It self-aligns/centers using the current holes.