H.Zwakenberg

have you sorted out your discussions with the PFA or is this issue still open?

bye

Hans

Only for those pushers that (a) have their props exposed to potential debris, and (b) have wheels in front of the prop (most all canards). The Bateleur seems to have this figured out.

 

Given that I managed to exchange e-mails with Andre von Shoenenbeck, their CEO, two weeks ago, I certainly wouldn't consider them 'dead'. Sure, not marketing enough, but let's not kill them before they've had a chance -- I would love to see one of these at a fly-in here in the U.S.

I've tried to get in contact with them on a number of occasions, through their web feedback form. None of those attempts was succesful... However, like you, I'd like to see them spread...

bye

Hans

since I own the TERF CD's, I too would like to learn where/how to get those templates everyone is alluding to....

bye

Hans

Hi Group,

as of now, we are over 210 members and counting. It amazes me to no end how fast this thing developed.

bye

Hans

Hi Kumaros,

somewhere in one of those many cardboard boxes that didn't get emptied just yet (I moved mid August....) I have that same issue.

On three occasions, I've tried to get some more information about this design, once per mail, twice on some webform on that site. No joy on either of the three.

Marketing this design seems to be stone dead, at least, that's my perspective on it. Also note that no further articles appeared in a German magazine since the one you're referencing: not in Aerokurier, no follow up in Flieger Magazine, nothing. Until new info comes up, I consider Bataleur dead...

bye

Hans

Hans, yes, that would do it, but looking at their Web site, you can see pictures where the prop is behind and below the main wing's trailing edge. I wrote to them about it, and got a response that they only have one model, and then asked a question about the different pictures and haven't received a response. I gave up my research after that, so if you know anything I don't, please share.

Hi Jon,

please check out this picture of Bataleur dismantled on a trailer:

also see this picture, showing Bataleur from the side:

Notice that the propeller plane is in front of the trailing edge of the main wing (which, by the looks of it, sports a NACA 23112 similar section....).

I do admire the compactness of the trailerable Bataleur a lot.

take care,

Hans

Tony,

great drawings so far, thanks a lot! Do I understand this thread correctly in assuming that this is going to develop into a complete set of drawings?

Just wondered, because I own the TERF set of cd's.

bye

Hans

I think whatever pusher aircraft you select, debris in the prop is going to be a problem.

This is not a problem with Bataleur, as the prop turns above the main wing in front of the main wing's trailing edge. It's pretty well protected up there.

bye

Hans

Reasons against are:

 

The pusher configuration exerts a nose-down force

 

I've heard this argument before, but consider this:

Any prop with a thrust line above the landing wheels axis excerts a nose down force. Since this definition might very well include all prop aircraft (exceptions anyone ? ) it's most likely reasonable to claim that all propeller configurations excert a nose down force on the nose gear...

Now, what is true, is that pusher configs very often have somewhat higher thrustlines, which is causing a somewhat higher moment around the main gear axis, which in return results in a somewhat higher down force on the nose gear.

bye

Hans

I've checked their site and wondered where prototype #1 is.... Has it flown?

There's no information of this design having flown already...

I like their stick grip though...

bye

Hans

Hey, I like that idea, the problem is that my IBIS project won't allow for even a single chair in that little cargo bay over the main wing.

Otherwise I would have been game...

take care,

Hans

we have to stay vigilant: a couple of weeks back I was surfing all kinds of platforms for a used GNS-430. On more than one board, an offer from Indonesia popped up, with a price tag way below $ 3.000,00. Too good to be true, actually.

Looking a bit more closely to the picture that came with the offer, one could see that the cable mount wasn't unmounted 'the normal way', ie, all the cables where cut through, in a single cut. No connector...

I alerted a webmaster about the 'unorthodox GNS panel dismounting' and for sure, the next day the ad was gone....

bye

Hans

A classified ICAO code, what a cool concept.... Where can I get one, mom?

cheers,

Hans

I bet 'The Farm' doesn't have an ICAO location identificator...

I've had similar - but less extreme - experiences in a C150, which was a good thing since I was cruising at some 2000' AGL south of EDLS. I wouldn't have made it back though...

Hi group,

still flying around with a carb like I do?

In my neck of the woods (NW-Europe) carb icing is a real issue, not just during the cold months...

I found a little graphic - courtesy of the British CAA - that gives information about which conditions and operational use of the aircraft can induce several types of carb icing... Very educational and entertaining...

Grab it from http://ibis.experimentals.de under the downloads/documents section.

What really was an eye-opener to me was the realization that with a relative humidity of less than 40%, serious carb icing is still possible when ambient temperature and dewpoint are within certain ranges.

Grab it and study it, it may save your day...

bye

Hans

I do not need an instructor anymore. Fly the airplane home today myself. It flies just like a little Velocity just like I thought. Piece of cake

Congratulations Todd !!!!

bye

Hans

Actually, they are probably in line with the requirements, but what bothers me is they seem to not want to go the self-insure route and then cover me after that time. I understand their reluctance to insure it without checkout, but the question has to be raised: Am I really safer with a Long-EZ pilot in the back seat that knows nothing of the Speed Canard systems and operations (even though many items are similar many are VERY different) with the possibility of actually causing an accident if we jockey for control of the aircraft? Or, would the insurance company be better off letting me fly the aircraft (with my 200 hours of Velocity time under my belt) for 5 hours uninsured and then bind coverage on me? The letter seems like the better route to me; however, they are the ones with the risk, so I have to comply if I want coverage.

As for certified aircraft generally speaking if you have experience in a Piper Lance (6-seats, constant speed, retract,etc.) then you are automatically covered in a Cherokee 180 (4-seats, fixed prop, fixed gear) as it is basically the same line of aircraft and less complex. I guess the insurance folks think that this aircraft is different enough to waranty the instruction. More than likely, I will probably have to fly it uncovered for 20 hours or so and then give Falcon or AOPA insurance another call, but I prefer the instruction if possible.

What would happen if you's actually create a faît-accomplis, by flying those 5 hours yourself, and then apply for insurance coverage afterwards?

bye

Hans

1800 total time and 200 in canards. That's true testimony that the insurance companies have us by the balls.

not only that, they're squeezing, really hard...

A question for Brieuc and/or Todd:

how good a travelling machine can a SpeedCanard be?

More specifically, what is the maximum payload, what's still left of this payload if you fill up the tanks to the rim? How far / how long can you expect to fly with two really grown ups in the cockpit?

thanks for any reply!

bye

Hans

if you look at the lower picture of Bataleur on a trailer (the side view), you see that the prop hub is entirely over the main wing, so I can understand, that prop damage on grass or gravel strips is a thing of the past.

Also, the main wing's section looks a lot like a 23112, which is a reflexed 23012.

bye

Hans

well, for this year: just something flying, anything, so that I don't have to rent anymore... For the following years.... anything of the above...

as promised, a bit of history about the SpeedCanard:

the original designers (and founders of GyroFlug) were Peter Krauss and Joerg Elzenbeck. Both had built a VariEze in 1975/1976. Favorable comments from onlookers on about all fields they flew to with their VariEze caused them to think about series production of a similar craft.

To this end, they founded GyroFlug and got to work. They started out with the front part of a Twin-Astir sailplane. On December 12, 1980 Helmut Laurson piloted the first prototype on its maiden flight from Oberpfaffenhofen.

Performance and handling left quite a bit to be desired, so a major redesign was undertaken, which included a new main wing design.

On July 10, 1981 the new prototype - again piloted by Helmut Laurson - took to the air. A third prototype was built. An extensive certification flight testing program (including spin tests) ensued. After certification, series production began. All laminating was done at Glaser-Dirks of sailplane fame, untill about 1986/87. I couldn't trace exactly when, but sometime GyroFlug was acquired by FFT. This company went into receivership during 1992.

The canard wing sports an Eppler E1231 section, the main wing & winglets may sport an Eppler E374. I wrote 'may', because my source isn't too specific about it, so I can't be sure.

bye

Hans

More information on the Bataleur here.

As to current pricing, check this.

bye

Hans

The IBIS main wing's section is most likely LS(1)-0417 (GA(W)-1)

bye

Hans

I'm rather new to the (still rather tiny) IBIS community. My first impression is, that IBIS builders generally don't exchange information all that much. There's a Yahoo community , currently with only 81 members. Of these, less than 10% are actual builders. There are other reasons why open communication isn't flourishing within this community, but I'd rather comment on that in a PM...

 

As to stall behavior: of course the front surface needs to stall first and apparently, so it does with IBIS. The designer didn't use any modern laminar sections, so I think the old problem of flying in rain or flying bug littered is as critical as it used to be with the Rutan designs and their derivatives. The canard wing looks like a slotted NACA 23015 to me, but I haven't really compared the ordinates just yet. The section of the main wing is a bit fuller and the location of the maximum thickness is a bit further aft, but it still is a conventional (non-laminar) section.

 

Since the IBIS is cruising with appr. 10° up-elevons, I'd like to know how she stalls in that configuration. So far, no one gave me the skinny on that, I have to consult with JC to learn more about this...

I can now confirm with certainty that the front wing sports a slotted NACA 23012 section. The slot is at 75% chord.

The main wing has a GAW-1 section, but I don't know yet which one of the GAW-1 sections it is. I'll keep you posted.

bye

Hans