Velocity V twin

[A64Pilot]

Every aircraft is a compromise, a four cyl Mooney believe it or not is a decent off airport / short field machine. Decent, it’s not a Supercub, but the cub can’t cruise at 150 kts either and your not taking a Mooney into a gravel bar.

Without flaps a naturally slippery Canard is surely much harder to slow than a Mooney, then there is that prop clearance issue with the nose up. So a Canard in that compromise thing is slid much further towards the 5,000 min paved side, but flaps shouldn’t be that hard? 

But I do wonder why there are no Certified Canards, they were all the rage in the 80’s, and I’m convinced that Beech killed the Starship as it’s development would take more money, but the major competitor it had was the King Air, that didn’t require more money, why spend money getting better when your only real competition is yourself? At least that’s my theory anyway, Starship sure looks cool

Edited March 19, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Jim Peace]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

But I do wonder why there are no Certified Canards

 

[ilovecornfields]

The homebuilt accident rate has always been higher than that for certified GA planes no matter how you slice it. I know for some people this isn’t an issue, but for me it is. We all complain about the costs of owning a certified plane but there does seem to be some value in the process for those who care about those things.

My son loves drooling over my hangar neighbor’s RV. He’s even sat in it a couple of times. He will never fly in it as long as I get a say. I know that’s extreme but for me it’s just not a risk worth taking. It would be like saying “anesthesia isn’t risky enough already, why don’t we try it without all those expensive monitoring devices and make our own cocktail of meds?” No thank you.

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-comparing-the-rates/

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Isn’t a Canard, not really. I think of a Canard as the forward lifting surface that is the sole elevator, not like the Piaggo or the Cessna, I’m not even sure they do much on the 182?

A velocity is the same thing as a Comanche and a 182 katmai is the same thing as a 182 because the forward lifting surface doesn't count and doesn't do much?

Yes the props are closer in a velocity than in a Comanche and that does change the single engine performance as compared to standard twins.  No it is not center thrust like a Cessna 337 but it is a relevant change.

Yes a Cessna 182 Katmai is a significant alteration to a standard 182 and I don't care what you want to call that forward lifting surface thing which is dramatically changing the flight characteristics but the katmai stalls at 31 kts (book at gross), and it is a highly respected mod.  It is a certified mod so in some sense it is certified but yes it is not an oem certified configuration.

stall lowered to from 54 to 31kts at gross.  Take off ground roll 290 ft.  Landing ground roll 240 ft.  Yes it does something.

It is a lifting surface and other people besides you do call it a canard.  I am one of those people who calls it a canard, and so are the bush pilot community that respect the mod such as this article that calls it a canard.

https://disciplesofflight.com/king-katmai/

Or maybe you will let me call it a duck and we can call it a day.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

You didn’t read my earlier post, as the piaggio clearly has a standard elevator, is it really a Canard? I don’t even think the Piaggio Canard has a movable surface, so it’s not a flight control, one assumes it provides lift and may therefore reduce the elevator download or is used to extend CG range, but it’s not really a Canard is it?

Edited March 19, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

BTW, I’ve flown a King Katmai, and the 550 has as much to do with its performance numbers as the “Canard”

The Vari-exe, Long-eze, Velocities etc are Canards and as such are a real departure from conventional aircraft. Adding a lifting surface in front of the wing of a conventional aircraft may improve performance, but it’s not a true Canard in my opinion.

Is a Beach Staggerwing a Canard?

[aviatoreb]

13 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

The homebuilt accident rate has always been higher than that for certified GA planes no matter how you slice it. I know for some people this isn’t an issue, but for me it is. We all complain about the costs of owning a certified plane but there does seem to be some value in the process for those who care about those things.

My son loves drooling over my hangar neighbor’s RV. He’s even sat in it a couple of times. He will never fly in it as long as I get a say. I know that’s extreme but for me it’s just not a risk with taking. It would be like saying “anesthesia isn’t risky enough already, why don’t we try it without all those expensive monitoring devices and make our own cocktail of meds?” No thank you.

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-comparing-the-rates/

I'm with you.  I approached flying with what math skills I have to ask myself what would an actuary do... and I did actuarial self-inquiry ..to which I decided ok, flying is bad but not that bad, but some forms of flying are much worse, and also some missions are much worse.  Despite my desire to fly some cool experimental airplane, in calm moments on the couch in an introspective mood, I have decided not to do that.  And I have also decided to not fly certain missions with my current airplane, like night flying single engine, or low ifr single engine.  I try to maintain my flying risk to be on par so as not to be significantly worse than other activities I find acceptable such as cycling and boating.  I believe it is on par, and perhaps slightly less risky.  And of course, as any good scientist would say when declaring statistically based philosophy, Knock on wood!

[aviatoreb]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

BTW, I’ve flown a King Katmai, and the 550 has as much to do with its performance numbers as the “Canard”

The Vari-exe, Long-eze, Velocities etc are Canards and as such are a real departure from conventional aircraft. Adding a lifting surface in front of the wing of a conventional aircraft may improve performance, but it’s not a true Canard in my opinion.

Is a Beach Staggerwing a Canard?

That's really cool.  I really wish I could fly - or even ride in - a Katmai.  I think it might be my next plane if I could somehow afford two!  But since you have flown one, I am confused why you said it doesn't do much since at least reports and book numbers describe a dramatic change of flight characteristics.  Are reports wrong.

Ok, so we are disagreeing with semantics - which means what words to call things, and so let's call it a day.  I think a lot of people call it a canard, rightly or wrongly, and I am in habit of doing so also.  It does a lot of something but for sure, it is not as much canard like as a Long-eze etc.  I am happy to call it a disagreement over semantics (what word we use) as I think we agree it is a pretty nifty mod.

Edited March 19, 2022 by aviatoreb

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

Also:

[A64Pilot]

The front lifting surface does significantly lower the stall of a 182, it does so by picking up the nose.

Normal 182 in slow flight holds the nose up by pushing the tail down, so let’s look at some pretend numbers to see what I’m talking about/

Pretend we have a 2000lb airplane, to raise the nose on short final the tail has to push down with 200 lbs of force. That means of course the wing will stall when it can only produce slightly less than 2200 lbs, sorry about the italics, it seems the Ipad just does as it pleases.

OK, on this pretend 2,000 lb airplane we install a lifting surface in front of the main wing, on short final it provides 100 lbs of lift, meaning of course that the wing now only has to provide 1900 lbs lift, or 300 lbs less, so yes it will stall at a lower airspeed.

Of course this both ends lifting is one of the things making a Canard more efficient than a conventional aircraft, a normal aircrafts wings have to produce more lift than the aircraft weighs, a Canard aircraft it only has to lift the weight the canard isn’t, which is a whole lot less.

Starship was used as a chase for something that flew up high, one of the new spacecraft I think. Starship was used I think because nothing else could fly high enough, and slow enough. That’s from memory so it could be wrong

Edited March 19, 2022 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Also:

Starship, except as far as I know 1, is gone. There is one guy who loves his and has bought every piece part he can.

The Starship used a BIG P&W engine -67, I know because I put several converted back to tractor Starship engines in Crop Dusters, The short time they were available they were a great bargain, an essentially new engine at used prices.

I’ve only seen one Starship fly and never rode in one, but I was certain at the time that it would revolutionize Aviation, they just look so much cooler than a King Air to me.

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The front lifting surface does significantly lower the stall of a 182, it does so by picking up the nose.

Normal 182 in slow flight holds the nose up by pushing the tail down, so let’s look at some pretend numbers to see what I’m talking about/

Pretend we have a 2000lb airplane, to raise the nose on short final the tail has to push down with 200 lbs of force. That means of course the wing will stall when it can only produce slightly less than 2200 lbs, sorry about the italics, it seems the Ipad just does as it pleases.

OK, on this pretend 2,000 lb airplane we install a lifting surface in front of the main wing, on short final it provides 100 lbs of lift, meaning of course that the wing now only has to provide 1900 lbs lift, or 300 lbs less, so yes it will stall at a lower airspeed.

Of course this both ends lifting is one of the things making a Canard more efficient than a conventional aircraft, a normal aircrafts wings have to produce more lift than the aircraft weighs, a Canard aircraft it only has to lift the weight the canard isn’t, which is a whole lot less

Yes, I understand perfectly what a canard is doing on a long-eze and what that thing is doing aerodynamically on a katmai.  I really think you are insisting on semantics meaning the use of words since there is no disagreement of the physics of what is happening I see.  I have been calling it a Canard none-the-less.  Is there an official word for that "front lifting surface" since it is not correctly called canard but it is incorrectly called that by many people including myself?  Should we call it "front lifting surface" descriptively only, or does it have a word, and a word that is distinct from canard?

Ironically, outside of aviation circles, there is a different meaning to the word canard in English (vs in French where it means duck), which arguably is a larger group of people than aviation people.  Canard means an unfounded rumor or story.  Can it be said in your interpretation that my incorrect use of the word canard to describe the forward lifting surface of the Katmai that is not truly a canard is a meta-canard, meaning the act of incorrectly using the word is in fact a canard?  Therefore if we agree to that, then this would make this discussion itself a bit like a canard about not a canard.  Thus I will call it a "meta-canard. "

Please forgive me.  Its a rainy Saturday afternoon and I am bored.
 

Edited March 19, 2022 by aviatoreb

[Wayne Cease]

I watched a video on YouTube this morning of a guy "Plane Crazy" (not BrIan) and the factory guy said the single can cruise at 200 mph at 4 gph. Now that's economy even if it's salesman hype and truth expansion...

What burns 4 gl an hour? My C-85 burns 5.5 at 2400, normal cruise

I thunk he meant 14 g/hr. I fly a SR22 with a IO-550.



Wayne

[A64Pilot]

Really doesn’t matter, What I was wondering is why are there no currently in production GA aircraft with the configuration that the Canard is the only pitch control?

One assumes on paper it ought to go faster and carry more with less fuel than a Conventional airplane with the elevator at the rear of the aircraft.

Yes I know we don’t fly paper airplanes 

The very first aircraft were Canard’s, so what happened? Why was the design dropped? Have we come to the point that nothing new can be Certified due to costs?

Why are there no Canard Airliners?

Edited March 19, 2022 by A64Pilot

[carusoam]

The canard layout… 

Theoretically, we get to swap a down force at the back, for an up force at the front…  (all good)

The execution of this requires not interrupting the flow of air, anywhere near the lifting wing that trails the canard…

 

Watching the development and failure of the Audi powered Raptor canard…

The front wing, disrupted a lot of lift, behind it….

replacing the lost lift… requires extending the main lifting wing… a big drag, physical strength, and hangaring, penalty…

 

What would work… moving relative height of the wings… and spreading their distance….

Take a look at how Al Mooney handled the location of the canard in his design…

 

It is one ugly Canardling… 

 

The Long-EZ is a really nice example of many iterations… built from fiberglass, and a C152’s 108hp engine… it can run into a UL challenge…

PP thoughts only, not a plane design guy…

Best regards,

-a-

[bmcconnaha]

On 3/18/2022 at 8:35 AM, Jim Peace said:

Daytona?  

Yeah, I was wrong.  It’s Sebastian, Fl.  

[bmcconnaha]

6 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

The homebuilt accident rate has always been higher than that for certified GA planes no matter how you slice it. I know for some people this isn’t an issue, but for me it is. We all complain about the costs of owning a certified plane but there does seem to be some value in the process for those who care about those things.

My son loves drooling over my hangar neighbor’s RV. He’s even sat in it a couple of times. He will never fly in it as long as I get a say. I know that’s extreme but for me it’s just not a risk worth taking. It would be like saying “anesthesia isn’t risky enough already, why don’t we try it without all those expensive monitoring devices and make our own cocktail of meds?” No thank you.

https://www.kitplanes.com/homebuilt-accidents-comparing-the-rates/

Right, and part of that is what experimental aircraft afford.  The ability to make changes without going through certification.  If you could take all the one off builds, and auto engine conversion out and compare accident rates, you might see they accident rates are closer than you think.  Look at the accident rate of a proven design such as the glasair sportsman,  both total accidents and fatal accidents.  It’s experimental, and I wouldn’t think twice about owning it in place of a 172/182 if that was my mission.  

[philiplane]

8 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

This is not a canard design, it is a unique, patented, "three lifting surface" design which allowed moving the main wing back, to keep the spar carry through out of the passenger compartment. It has a conventional elevator for pitch control.

A canard provides some lift, and pitch control, and stall control of the wing. This surface on the Avanti only provides lift, allowing the main wing to be smaller, increasing the speed. The Avanti is 90 knots faster than a King Air on the same power. The Avanti also has Fowler flaps on the main wing, and small flaps on the front lifting surface. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by philiplane

[N201MKTurbo]

I parked next to one of those last week in Tulsa. The cockpit looks cramped even by Mooney standards.

[N201MKTurbo]

There are 2 mostly complete Starship airframes in a field at KAVQ.

 That’s where Beech took them all when they bought them all back.

[N201MKTurbo]

So, do you think the whole Burt Rutan Cunard thing was just a bunch of bull? Did he con the whole aviation world?

[N201MKTurbo]

So, the Starship checked all the boxes except being better than a King Air. 

[EricJ]

31 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, do you think the whole Burt Rutan Cunard thing was just a bunch of bull? Did he con the whole aviation world?

Tons of military aircraft all over the world have used them for decades, too.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, do you think the whole Burt Rutan Cunard thing was just a bunch of bull? Did he con the whole aviation world?

No, but there has to be a reason why what 40 years later there are very few experimentals that followed that path and no current in production Certified GA aircraft.

So what is it? I don’t know, it would seem to be a very efficient and therefore fast airplane, so why aren’t there any, are the ez’s even being produced in kit still?

They are about as rare as Tri-motors, you rarely see one in the wild anymore

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

So, the Starship checked all the boxes except being better than a King Air. 

I think in the end being composite and all, along with the avionics being such a mess it ended up costing as much as a comparable Jet with significantly lower performance. Speed, range and I guess payload too.

Composite was exceedingly new, FAA didn’t have a handle on it and likely required it to be overbuilt and therefore heavy.

I’m pretty sure composites pretty much killed the Lear fan too, in the end I think the FAA had no idea how to Certify composite and were pretty much making Lear write the book, with the FAA continually making 9th inning changes of course.

So back to Starship, it was overweight and therefore slow and lower performance, and combined with those avionics it was a mess, and expensive a really cool looking airplane though.