Twin EZ

Did you ever get the brake problem fixed? What was the problem?

The full flying canard was just an "IDEA" At no point did I say that I was going to do it. But it would look nice. So....that idea has been officially scrapped. Still going foward with designing a twin though

I guess that my thought would be to adjust it on the ground (out of true), so that when flying it would be true.

Wildbird, Went through your pics. Looks like you are doing a great job. Keep up the work and you will be flying in no time.

Confused??? Isn't that most of the time when flying???

for $550, thats pretty hard to go wrong. Hopefully whoever won the bid, will be diligent and get her flying....one more backwards flyer in the air

I have to agree with everything that you have said. And these are issues that I have been going through. That being said, I could build a fixed canard, keeping the center of lift in the same place, but if indeed we are looking at a decrease in efficiency, for a tappered look, then forget it. The end result needs to work better, not worse. Im still going foward with the twin idea though:D

full flying is just that, the whole surface will move. I have not run the numbers yet. But I see no reason to have to extend the nose. the sensitivity is controlled by the amount the control surface moves in relation to the stick movment, and the amount of force applied by the anti-servo tab on the trailing edge. This is only a theoretical idea here...nothing concrete.

Back tot he origin of this post: Attached is a pic of he full flying canard idea. But who knows, maybe its just fancy-full thinking. But then again, that is what this section is about

NOPE. They are engines for aircraft. (not motorcycle, auto, marine, etc)

I think that Bowden started out with a good idea, and I would love to chat with the guy to get some specific details since I was not able to see his plane in person. His engine choice was pretty good, although I plan on using something else (I'm keeping that part a secret forthe time being). But I do agree with keeping the engines in the 80-90 hp range. I feel that his aero-dynamics for the cowlings were terriblly wrong. We cant afford to put to engines in the breeze and use a boxy cowling that he did with what appears to be holes drilled in the top (cooling issues maybe????). It is imperitive that the cowling and ducting shapes be done in such a way so as to reduce the parasitic as much as possible, otherwise forget it. I have no plans on flying a plane with a top speed of130 kts burning 6-7 gph. What would be the point in that?? Also, looking at his pro choice limited his performance. If we look at the amount of pitch the prop needs to get the kind of cruise speeds in a LE, how in the world can 80 hp spin it on take off. I would imagine that either he had relatively fine picthed props or he would never get of the ground. On a singlke engine, there is more horsepower to push a course pitch prop. I think that it will be necessary to run adjustable props to make this work. Unfortunately that does add complexity, but a necessary evil to the design. Bowdens engine placement seems to be pretty good (approx 5' apart). I can not tell the distance from the prop to the trailing edge. If was to close, there are some efficiency losses occuring there as well.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no problems with the existing canard design. (especiall the Ronzc design). My point wasnt to "solve" a problem, but rather to explore other possibilities. On conventional aircraft, you can get away with a small surface area on a stabilator vs convetntional stabilizer/elevator combination. (albiet, the forces are in the opposite direction). If indeed, the same reduction could be possible in the canard confiuration, we could achieve the same required lift, with the appropriate stall characteristics, while reducing the surface area, which in turn could reduce the induced drag. That was my thought anyways.

That's very hard to believe. I'm not calling you a liar, but 75 a/c from SCRATCH! In one lifetime...? Sorry, but this is pegginig my B.S. meter. Can you prove this statement? I can't even fathom someone building 75 from kits, let alone 75 from scratch... Its not that hard, when that is what you did for a living for 8 years. So, yes I can prove it. Thanks for the attitude, gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling all over.

Make no mistake about it, my goals are to design it so that it will maintain on one engine at 80% power. My calculations show that running at 1300 lbs, it will maintain altitude on one engine, holding the speed at 100 knots. You may be refering to my take-off emergency senario. I wanted to simple point out that a twin is not a placebo. It can not be the savior in every situation. But 99% of the time, it can save your bacon. In the end, the proof will be when it is actually flying. I am confident that a Twin LE can be done, reliably with some amazing performace results.