rviglierchio

Contact me offline. Didn't mean to hijack Kent's thread...sorry Kent! gbisogno at yahoo dot com

A suggestion for some added protection. As you can see it's good for a couple screw ups....and when it happens you can just lower the gear and taxi away!

Randy, what did Burt say on the subject? And wasn't a big part of the problem in the 787 program the outsourcing of components all over the world? Seems there was a big change in the way tney did business about the same time and it was not successful?

I was standing in front of their booth at Osh with a friend that dragged his butt out there in an Osprey. He commented that this thing was near his empty weight and had almost 1/3 less horsepower and his was a serious dog...how to sell that for $200k...!

Supposed to be moving to Vacaville. You'd think they'd have enough fiscal sense to get out of CA....

Thought you meant smaller than that. Thanks.

Thanks Erlend. Glad I could make a couple of these in years past!

I'd be interested in what you've found that's so small and yet capable of landing light lumens and distance when approaching at our speeds in the dark. Contrary to some opinions, most anything you hang out there on the gear is nice for landing drag but also drag for takeoff and we already burn up some distance doing that. Small and very powerful would be a nice compromise!Other designs have done what you suggest with traditional sized lamps and lots of drag. Just reduces your runway options. Not a game breaker but not good either.

Check with Beagle at canardfinder.com

What's wrong with unlimited?

Jon, I'm usually high on final and use belly board plus both rudders all the way to the numbers to get down. Could have better technique I suppose but would rather make the runway than come up short. Just the way I was trained. I like slipping but it has never felt right in the EZ. Randy, Jim Price set an altitude record using VGs on both canard and main wing. He developed the right installation, I believe, in a wind tunnel with a college project backing the research. They allowed him to fly very slow which happens at the upper end of the service ceiling. No Holiday Inn necessary, you nailed it!

Ditto here....

Something to consider. Of the few off field landing wrecks I've seen those with electric gear extended stayed upright while those with the manual system were either up or overcentered and rolled up allowing the nose to dig in and flip over. Have only seen a couple of these situations but I don't think it was a coincidence. My Wright system has an electric bypass that he felt was more useful than the original crank. Fortunately the ramifications of a failed retract is slow speed and failure to extend just makes a stripe on the runway and requires some glass work.... Don't often hear of failures requiring it? On the other hand, if an electric speed board fails to retract it can affect engine temps very quickly. Good to check during climb out. PS: a buddy flew without his 'brake' working for years and we went into some short (2100') runways so the 4000' to 5000' requirement is incorrect. (Long EZs) It is definitely a flat approach.