Vortal

Now you do Title Block.zip

its' a very cool aircraft you will find more spec here on the website http://www.over-flyer.ch/aeriks200/aeriks-contact.htm the problem is that there seem to be nothing moving since the assets of Aceair (the original company who developed the aeriks) has been sold to over-flyer... the latest news is the air show in Germany in 2007... (the photo with the guy checking in the engine compartment in Edge's post)

Isn't this project dead? (the Aeriks) the website hasn't moved since ages! after a long/open-ez this would be my second choice.... it is very nice looking and i like the 3 surface concept otherwise, you have the ellipse (http://www.lhaviation.com/site_frame/pages_en/galerie_en.htm) which looks a lot like the aeriks but in a traditional 2 surface config. (no canard)...

it's still a very nice job, disregarding the fact that it's CF or GF. there is dirty job works around there done by people thinking paint can hide everything...

for the swept wing check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swept_wing for that cute canard, it does look cool but a forward swept canard.... this guy like to make things complicated, you need to know what you are doing, this is way above the competency of the majority of us (unless you have worked on the X29 program at the nasa) you'll need FBW and lots of plies of carbon fiber to control structural divergence and instability... Marcel Dassault (the guy behind Dassault aviation, the falcon family and the rafale) said one day that a good looking aircraft is a good aircraft, but as we see here, there is some limits....

both! start by #2 first but you'll still need to go with #1 at some point (supercritical airfoil at worst) that's why many if not all M=.7+ aircraft have swept wings... and M=.82+ have supercritical aircraft (lot of them)

what about the starship's airfoil (Roncz 1085) it goes @ 335kts (385mph) (source http://www.bobscherer.com/Files/Starship/Starship%20Performance%20and%20Specifications.pdf) by the way when your talking mph is it nautical miles (kts) or statute miles per hour (just to confirm, i get mixed up)

Ok! sorry for that don't quite got the terms yet...

actually the slats are for the wings (eppler 1230 mod), not the canard, and the canard are all ready using flaps as ailerons correct me if I'm wrong, the slats do increase CL max but also reduces Cm.

i was in my car and thinking that if you loose your engine, your cg is going to move forward not aft!!! okay guys disregard my blahblah edit, its completely wrong... sorry (marc, no need to blast this one out, i did it myself!)

32deg relatively to? air? let say air... (sorry i dont have the english technical words) 5 deg compared to the fuselage? the canard will still stall at 32 deg, and by lowering the canard by 5 deg you have reduce de lift force from the canard, and your aircraft won't be balanced for level flight any more, it will pitch down... to be able to lower your canard, you'll need to change the airfoil (to have a higher lift coef, and eventually have a bigger canard (you know? ½.rho.S.V².Cl?) and this comes back to marc's demo one of the ways to do this, have your canard and wing settled up for cruise. put flaps on your wing to get a higher Clmax , and flaps on the canard to have a higher CLmax, if you have say 10% more CL on the wing you must add an large amout (taking the force/moment balance in account)to on the canard (to keep the same stall margin between the wing and the canard) then you realize that the pitching moment of the wing is bigger, so your canard has to carry even more... so you try to keep the flaps generating less pitching moment by reducing the down angle of the flaps (look at the starship, the flaps doesn't drop down like say commercial aircraft) or add slats...(to be confirmed for the slats)... it is mind blowing! edit : loosing your engine does pitch your nose down... if you don't take in acount your CG moving aft super quick (loosing your engine) giving your canard more arm lift (is that correct?) and so more authority to balance your aircraft and less arm lift to your wing, and with luck (like this guy) your aircraft finaly balances out but you agree with me that moving around the CG in flight is MUCH more complicated (in calculations, you can still move your fuel around like in the concorde)...

i still don't see the word "only" in my quote... i once did it in 500ft, but usually around 1000ft... BRS! or just don't fly in icing! if you do ice, don't wait to have a critical ice thickness to make you aircraft stall (thats what i have been tought in my private pilot licence)... cozys aren't equipt with de-ice and therefor shouldnt go flying in icing condition... still stall resistance is a good thing in that case.. can you break a prop on a cessna by just pulling a bit to mutch on take off and landing? and is that "poor take-off and landing condition"?? the only way i see you can strike a prop is by not rounding on landing, but in this case you forward landing gear will collapse just like any aircraft... arf, what ever (the argument) thanks for you link, and for the notice on the oshkosh presentations, i have seen them a couple of times. it give basics on what has been done and what not to do... can't wait for the 2008 presentation (if there is some) concerning high lift, i am working on that right now, (see the my heavy mod thread). i am comparing strait canard and slightly swept canard with roncz profil and what is the differences. one this is done i'll try to see if the moving flaped canard- wing slat flap combination can ad something, i'll let you know...

First of all, don't make me say what i didn't, i have said that it was PRIMARILY for the looks, a assume that people are not stupid enough to build/buy an aircraft that just looks good, and flies bad! go on lancair's website, you will see 15mpg (22gph)@330mph, i think you can reach your 17gph if you slow down at 200mph... far from your 10-12gph...then again i didn't tested it my self so explain to me why people are not massively buying Cozys? i mean if it's the best 4 seater, cheapest, most efficient, heavier caring aircraft, people would just buy this aircraft and leave the others aside! yes there is a community of cozy builders, i do respect them, but still canards are marginal it doesn't mean that you don't agree with me that everyone has your vision, nor do i assume that everyone agrees with me. check this http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3541&postcount=2 (i didn't go far to find that!) Still, go around these thread and look how people reacts regarding the style of a starship or any other canards, and after don't tel me that people chose there aircraft without thinking about the looks in the top 3 position. For advantages of stall resistance, it is an advantage, don't get me wrong (by the way, 800ft to recover from a stall? WOW!! need a BRS?) but there is some disadvantages in a day to day use of the aircraft (unless you get iced every time you fly) like prop strikes on take-off and/or landing, you can't land on grass or not prepared surface without damaging the prop (or at least risking to damage it). I still love these aircraft because of their spec, speed, range, loading capabilities, but i did came here first because of the looks, i do admit, and thanks I'm not brain damaged, at least not to my knowledge... (maybe my witting is bad, but English is not my native language, i please ask your tolerance) and that's how a "Higher CLmax?" thread became a "why canard are better than conventional" thread is someone working on that issue (CLMax) in there mods?

Agree 100% with you, canard aren't as efficient as conventional or 3-surface aircraft. Just have a look at what's flying over your head and 99% of the time it's a conventional aircraft. The 1% left is maybe canard or a 3 surface (when you get to see an avanti) But are we in the canard business for efficiency? i'm not, if i was i would go for a lancair or something like that... Canard business is about the looks, if you see a king air pass by, you will hardly notice it, if a starship passes by, every one will have there eyes wide open on it. People say that a canard is safer because it's unstallable. Seriously, are you trying to stall you aircraft at each flight? People (private) buy things on the looks before buying on efficiency, (i'm working on business aircraft, and customers want the thing to look good, and to be cheep, then later on to be efficient (at lease not to inefficient)...they prefer 300lb wood than 50lb laminate for there interiors, 150lbs of flashy paint than a 50lbs of plain white...) Canard aficionado's just wont admit that they have/want a canard because it looks cool, not because it's "more efficient"...

it would be a nice thing to find a way of installing a high lift device (not necessarily flaps) on these canards because this is the main show stopper to have bigger canard aircrafts. you don't want to land at 150kts or faster, because all the runways aren't 6000ft long, and landing of runway at that speed is a problem. in the other end, you don't want to much wing surface to land slow and have to much induced drag at high speed... (trade offs!!!) we have the example of the starship, with a heavy high lift system, that brought the stall speed something like 5kts down, and was not worth the weight added (you'll find these comments in other threads in this forum) what is acceptable on a LEZ or a COZY IV is not accepetable on a 6 seater or a twin... or even bigger and forget Fly by wire also! that's a problem I'm working on right now, this one and others...

maybe by using a full moving canard for the control and the elevators only as flap to increase lift in landing conditions... only a suggestion...

Here you go! i think this is from a Cozy but it's about the same for the long The main wing is a modified Eppler 1230, the one in this pack are the standard ones (you'll have to search for the differences) have fun airfoil_info.zip

Yes, I find it much more cleaner, also parts are integrated and transitions (strakes incorporation for example) permits thins like wing carmans and further more air streamline control using CFD (i don't know if he went this far) that's what i meant with "aerodynamics". It will sure be harder to build than an EZ. so is mine compared to an EZ, there is as much difference between an EZ with my concept than there is with a speed canard or with a bateleur Ok, so my approach is different, i will modify the angle of attack (compared to the local air stream) locally on the wing tip, and over the wing the flow goes inboard (initial flow of the wing tip vortex), you can catch that inboard going flow with the winglet pitched outboard, but less than the flow, the winglet will then have a positive angle of attack compared to the flow and so produce lift, the lift direction will have a forward component producing thrust. I am, your suggestions will force me to ask myself the right questions and see if my design is okay, suggestions can only make my design better...

I was talking about applying to the EZ the same sort of job done by Steve Wright on his stagger EZ Canard will be moved around also, it's a bit like moving up the fuselage without moving the wings and canard, except that the wing will have a greater dihedral angle to avoid wing strike. Canard will be positioned accordingly. Anyways the Bateleur has a low wing and the speed canard has a negative dihedral more prone to wing strike, and these to machine are still working well To make it short, if your (very nice by the way) job on the blended winglets incorporated a 5 deg outboard AOA of the winglets, my design is very similar. I'll try a couple of thing first and I’ll come bake to you on that one. No contradiction here, but bad formulation, I still need those good advices like the ones you just gave me (thanks for that), I needn't anything like "why do you want to change anything at the perfect configuration of the Ez? Keep it as is!" because that aren't my intentions. And what I also meant is that I had a bit of time thinking about what I’m doing, but I do not know every thing

Who would buy a 1,000,000$ mooney? when for a couple buks more, you can get a VLJ I would be surprised if mooney would go for this range of price anyway

Pratt's PT6 has been used for GA aircraft, but always for experimental aircraft such as lancair or some rich pilot of RV's willing to adapt them to their machine But the PT6 was original designed for bigger airframe like the king air, and is still too powerful for regular GA's, Mooney is a certified airframe builder, under different FARs than lancair, and the RR 500 is more adapted to a 4 seats general aviation airframes (350 to 450 shp, and i suppose lower gph, announcement here) In the same way, you can’t compare adapted APUs (innodyn) to engines designed to have a propeller attached to it... Maybe Pratt will come out with a down sized down priced version of the PT6 to compete, and GE has brought Walter turbines (turbine legend), future will be interesting (anyone for a turbine EZ?)

Seen on Aero-News network : you can also have a look on mooney's and RR's website seems that serious companies are finally deciding go for turboprop for GA!

In fact it isn't heavy in a way it weigh a lot, it's heavy because there is a lot of modification: My mod will be executed in two phase, Phase one is a proof of concept for the geometrical layout of the aircraft: The basics is a long EZ, (far inspiration) -the fuselage will be molded and more worked out in an aerodynamic mater, the aircraft will be ±25% bigger than a long -the wings will be lowed to have shorter landing gear and have more space in the aft of the aircraft and also get the wheels for the propeller -winglets will be blended and twisted at the base to create a forward lift effect in the bottom section and re twisted in the mainstream direction as the wingtip vortex effect decreases (to be tested) -canard will be reshaped, although with the same roncs airfoil, to have an elliptical lift distribution -a ±300hp engine -molded carbon wings and canard, glass for the fuselage (except where needed) but this is still to be determined (as all the rest, the theory is one thing, but flight test will be the final judge) -etc... Phase two (long term) is to determine the feasibility of an new airfoil, high lift systems and so on i see you people with big eyes thinking "an other one mad guy thinking he can put a heavy not so efficient high lift system in his aircraft" actually the twin seater isn't the end of the hole project, it's a proof of concept for something bigger (not talking of a 200 seater but still bigger than a velo for example)... the point of this is to have a modernized canard to go and tickle Lancair's aircraft in performance (we'll see if it's possible) and maybe this project will get some interest from the rocket racers (never know!) my goal is to explore, and try to bring new ideas to the pot , and i know people much more experienced than i am will disagree with my project, but i think that our friend Burt didn't stop his projects because of experienced guys from Cessna or Piper... and it's not so EZ any more! BTW it will be meant to be produced and commercialized (medium term) I've been working on that since i was 12 so I'm not willing to change my mind in 3 months... Comments are welcomed!

Sorry if i was a bit aggressive, I'm dealing with Cm's an airfoil right now, trying to understand the eppler mod, and it's heavy for the brain, I'll open a new post i think...

What i love (not) of the guy that posted post #5 and some of you guys also (you'll reconize yourself) is that endless amount of pessimism : it's always "nah don't do that it useless, you'll only gain a few percent, keep it with the good old 30 years old design, works fine! Agree, it works fine, but 30 years ago, gas was much more cheaper (i couldn't say who much, i wasn't even born!) Now days, running after each percent is worth it, but you need to come out with new solutions, walking away from that nice paved well known road and try new more rough paths try more efficient airfoils, smoother aerodynamics (or just different approaches), weight savings... I do agree that all of this has a cost, but nothing is free any more, so the final question is, what can you afford ($$$$ of gas or $$ of airframe) to keep on flying without busting your not so unlimited budget? That's were i'm going, it's about experimental aircrafts isn't it?