BrianHalstrom

Sorry, I was trying to be a little funny and also just simplifying it way too much. I understand if it was simple and easy everyone would do it. I appreciate this kind of input. It's the questions I don't know to ask that I can't do any research on. Speaking of research I appreciate the source material. I'll definitely be doing some more reading, so it's good to know what I should be reading. 🙂

Vertical Stabilizer with ruder So what you are saying is to move the fuselage forward (wing backwards) to shift the CG forward to resolve that right?

Kent- The "Why it goes Fast" is an excellent video. I'll definitely use its resources for my build.

Kent- Like I said, I am not building a Quickie replica. I am building my aircraft using design similarities to the Quickie. I am building something I can fly off of private grass strips that are extremely short. There are campgrounds in my area that can be reached by aircraft at high altitude but the approach is through a canyon and the approach is best done slow. You are exactly right that features add complexity but that is besides the point. If done correctly the weight gain will be minimal and with modern construction the weight gain should be offset through better materials and internal design. You are talking about a 1970's design vs a 2020's design. In the last 40 years materials have reach a price and availability that Burt Rutan could only dream about in the 70's. I would like to state unequivocally that I am no Burt Rutan. However, I am using every trick I know to reduce stall speed. The video you linked to is literally titled "Why it goes so Fast". The video I hope somebody would make about my plane would be titled "Why it goes so Slow". While I study anything I can get my hands on, I am more interested in taking this design slower not faster. If I can do both that will be great, but I have the opportunity to fly in mountain ranges that are routinely at the 9,000 ft range. There are 15 mountains in Washington 9,000 ft or higher, there are 100 over 8,000 ft in elevation. In Idaho there are 15 mountains above 11,000 feet and 40 above 9,000 feet. Large portions of idaho are above 8,000 feet so they don't really list them. The highest peak in North Carolina is around 6700 which describes most of the valleys and hills I grew up around. If you are interested in what I am talking about I suggest any of the video's from the "Flying Cowboys". I have seen videos of Trent Palmer, Steve Henry, Mike Patey, Mark Patey, and Scott Palmer that get me excited. They (specifically the Patey twins) do build fast aircraft, but what I am most interested in is there slow ones. Like I said I love feedback but I am starting to think that because you want to go faster, so should I. Your dig about delivering bibles in the Congo seemed especially juvenile. There are so many reason to go slow I don't want to list them. I posted on this forum to find helpful suggestions about my design, not what others would want it to be. I would love input that is more geared to helping my goals, not hindering them. Once again thanks for your input

I appreciate your feedback Kent. I am an aspiring designer and I could use all the feedback I can get. I am planning on adding a rear stabilizer to the design but that was just the start of a rough draft. While I am starting with the Quickie, and I don't plan on renaming it the slowpoke for its slow speed handling, I am not actually looking to build a Quickie Clone. I want to add leading-edge slats, lengthen the cord of the wings, add flaperons, as well as a belly flap. I plan on incorporating other design mods to reduce the stall speed considerably. I agree this design will have increase drag from the surface area but I am hoping to make some of that back by utilizing the canard to wing tip connector as a Winglet, not to mention the Winglet itself (I just haven't trimmed it or actually shaped it until I actually run a aerodynamic study). I also agree that the extension bracket under the nose of fuselage could create interference drag but I haven't done an aerodynamic study of it yet. I disagree with there being an interference drag with the canard to wing connector. If designed correctly the connection will actually reduce drag by reducing wingtip vortices. As the wingtip vortex rotates around from below the wing it will strikes the cambered surface of the canard to wind connector, thereby generating a force that angles inward and slightly forward. The winglet converts some of the otherwise-wasted energy in the wingtip vortex to an apparent thrust. Either way I like the feedback because it forces me to reconsider design choices. I have never even attempted to design an aircraft before, except maybe in my imagination. Thanks

This is just a couple hour rough draft but something like this

I'm a 42 year old mechanical design student from Spokane, Washington. I'm in the process of getting my Mechanical Engineering Technology degree from Spokane Community College. As a project for my Technical Applications class I am designing an aircraft based on the Rutan Quickie. My plan is to build a 1/4 scale model for the class, as a proof of concept, with plans to build a full scale model at a later date.