Musings on SOARING cover photos

[Ray Lovinggood]

Is there a rule stating the cover photo for SOARING
magazine HAS to be a sailplane?

I would doubt it. And why should there be?

I like the cover photo, showing the SSA headquarters
building at Hobbs, NM, in snow. It's a nice, seasonal,
shot of our organization's home base.

What else could go on the cover? Photos of:

Soaring pilots;
Soaring crew;
igc flight traces;
Screen shots from See You or Stre Pla;
Convention photos;
Tow planes;
Winches;
Glider fields;
And, surely those with an artistic touch have much
better ideas.

The cover photo doesn't have to show the ubiquitous
German glider.

As for the Best Ever photo? Has to be the one by Chris
Woods over the Wright Brothers Memorial, shot on 4
JUL 03.

Snotty
aka Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[[email protected]]

I'd like to know more about the glider on the March 1984 cover, and
where the photo was taken ...

[[email protected]]

btw that photo is here:
http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg

[[email protected]]

I've always kind of wondered what kind of urinals the SSA has in their
men's room. Why not a cover shot!

[cernauta]

Ray Lovinggood > wrote:



>What else could go on the cover? Photos of:
>
>Soaring pilots;
> [snip]

Don't forget scenes from outlandings. We have had one on our Italian
magazine Volo a Vela:
http://www.fly-net.org/csvva/bibliografia/267.htm

here an index of our covers, from july 2000 to today:
http://www.fly-net.org/csvva/bibliografia/rivista.html

Aldo Cernezzi
"proud author of many of those shots"

[John H. Campbell]

> I'd like to know more about the glider on the March 1984 cover, and

Why, that's the Rutan Solitaire, of course, winner of SSA's homebuilt
motorglider design contest. I'm too lazy to dig up my hardcopy, but it's
likely astronaut Mike Melvill on board. Or perhaps NASA test pilots
Enevoldson and Meyer whose data argued that canards aren't ideal for
sailplanes.

[John H. Campbell]

> I like the cover photo, showing the SSA headquarters...

Ditto. Snow in Hobbs alone is memorable. A non-profit Sports Association
of some 13,000 having a building and full-time staff at all is pride
inspiring to me. Guess some folks don't appreciate the 50 years that SSA
was some file boxes in Ralph Barnaby's or Paul Schweizer's garage and on to
rented space in Santa Monica.

[Bo Brunsgaard]

wrote in message om>...
> btw that photo is here:
> http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg

It's a Rutan Solitaire, unless I'm very much mistaken.

Self-launcher with an interesting engine installation concept. The
engine is placed in the fuselage in front of the pilot rather than in
the rear fuselage.

I seem to recall that one of them was built here in Denmark in the
late 1980's or early 90's, either from a kit or bottom-up from
drawings. I think it was sold out of the country a few years later.

Bo Brunsgaard

[f.blair]

I agree, remembering Hobbs during the hot summer days, the snow picture is
refreshing. We also go snow this winter down on the Texas, Gulf Coast.

Fred Blair
"John H. Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>> I like the cover photo, showing the SSA headquarters...
>
> Ditto. Snow in Hobbs alone is memorable. A non-profit Sports Association
> of some 13,000 having a building and full-time staff at all is pride
> inspiring to me. Guess some folks don't appreciate the 50 years that SSA
> was some file boxes in Ralph Barnaby's or Paul Schweizer's garage and on
> to
> rented space in Santa Monica.
>
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, John H. Campbell wrote:

> ...winner of SSA's homebuilt motorglider design contest...

I believe that the event was actually sponsored by the SHA (Sailplane
Homebuilder's Association).

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[RichardFreytag]

Bo Brunsgaard wrote:
> wrote in message
om>...
> > btw that photo is here:
> > http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg
>
> It's a Rutan Solitaire, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>
> Self-launcher with an interesting engine installation concept. The
> engine is placed in the fuselage in front of the pilot rather than in
> the rear fuselage.
>
> I seem to recall that one of them was built here in Denmark in the
> late 1980's or early 90's, either from a kit or bottom-up from
> drawings. I think it was sold out of the country a few years later.
>
> Bo Brunsgaard

I communicated back in the late 1980s with a US gentleman that was
selling a Rutan Solitaire homebuilt you see in the picture (email
lost). He indicated some concern about his Rutan Solitaire being
tricky for an inexperienced pilot. Apparently the canard was designed
to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.

Perhaps this thread will get forwarded to said owner and he'll fill in
the details.

Best,
Richard

[RichardFreytag]

Bo Brunsgaard wrote:
> wrote in message
om>...
> > btw that photo is here:
> > http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg
>
> It's a Rutan Solitaire, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>
> Self-launcher with an interesting engine installation concept. The
> engine is placed in the fuselage in front of the pilot rather than in
> the rear fuselage.
>
> I seem to recall that one of them was built here in Denmark in the
> late 1980's or early 90's, either from a kit or bottom-up from
> drawings. I think it was sold out of the country a few years later.
>
> Bo Brunsgaard

I communicated back in the late 1980s with a US gentleman that was
selling a Rutan Solitaire homebuilt you see in the picture (email
lost). He indicated some concern about his Rutan Solitaire being
tricky for an inexperienced pilot. Apparently the canard was designed
to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.

Perhaps this thread will get forwarded to said owner and he'll fill in
the details.

Best,
Richard

[F.L. Whiteley]

"RichardFreytag" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Bo Brunsgaard wrote:
> > wrote in message
> om>...
> > > btw that photo is here:
> > > http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg
> >
> > It's a Rutan Solitaire, unless I'm very much mistaken.
> >
> > Self-launcher with an interesting engine installation concept. The
> > engine is placed in the fuselage in front of the pilot rather than in
> > the rear fuselage.
> >
> > I seem to recall that one of them was built here in Denmark in the
> > late 1980's or early 90's, either from a kit or bottom-up from
> > drawings. I think it was sold out of the country a few years later.
> >
> > Bo Brunsgaard
>
> I communicated back in the late 1980s with a US gentleman that was
> selling a Rutan Solitaire homebuilt you see in the picture (email
> lost). He indicated some concern about his Rutan Solitaire being
> tricky for an inexperienced pilot. Apparently the canard was designed
> to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
> that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
> put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.
>
> Perhaps this thread will get forwarded to said owner and he'll fill in
> the details.
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
Kind of defeats the purpose of having a canard. Perhaps it was built wrong.

Frank Whiteley

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:42:15 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:


>> Apparently the canard was designed
>> to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
>> that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
>> put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.

>Kind of defeats the purpose of having a canard. Perhaps it was built wrong.

I think this is exactly how a canard plane is supposed to work: Canard
stalls first, nose goes down, aircraft picks up speed again. AoA of
main wing always stays within the safe range, aileron always stays
effective, no wing drop.


Bye
Andreas

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 13:42:15 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >> Apparently the canard was designed
> >> to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
> >> that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
> >> put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.
>
> >Kind of defeats the purpose of having a canard. Perhaps it was built
wrong.
>
> I think this is exactly how a canard plane is supposed to work: Canard
> stalls first, nose goes down, aircraft picks up speed again. AoA of
> main wing always stays within the safe range, aileron always stays
> effective, no wing drop.
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas
Yes, you are right. Long time since I last thought of canards.

Frank

[Andy Blackburn]

>> I think this is exactly how a canard plane is supposed
>>to work: Canard
>> stalls first, nose goes down, aircraft picks up speed
>>again. AoA of
>> main wing always stays within the safe range, aileron
>>always stays
>> effective, no wing drop.
>>
>>
>> Bye
>> Andreas
>Yes, you are right. Long time since I last thought
>of canards.
>
>Frank

Of course this is also the basic problem with canards.
Because you want the canard always to stall first the
main wing can never reach max Cl, the minimum flying
speeds for the overall aircraft are high and the climb
performance suffers. If you enforce dynamic stability
(canard loses lift first even when pitching up) - it
gets even worse. Of course having the whole contraption
pitch UP at stall is worst of all.

Canard designs often are touted as 'stall-proof'. This
might be technically true, but it is a pointless argument
if the canard has a sharp break at stall leading to
a sharp nose drop.

Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I haven't seen Burt
Rutan produce a new canard-configured design in quite
a while.

9B

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Andy Blackburn > wrote:

> Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I haven't seen Burt
> Rutan produce a new canard-configured design in quite
> a while.

Hmm. The last few have been conventional (SS1/WhiteKnight/GlobalFlyer)
but the starship, proteus and boomerang are all canard. As are the UAVs
I think.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Mark James Boyd]

This is the big lie behind canards. Of course they
stall. After the mains touch down, holding the nose up
with the front canard until it stalls makes a good
bang onto the nose gear. If the C.G. is far enough aft,
you can stall both wings in flight. And inverted, all bets are off.

The Speed Canard is a certified aircraft in Europe.
Although the "stall" speed (really maximum
"sink" speed) is below 60 knots, we used to fly it on
at 80 and do a wheel landing and lower the nose before
the forward canard stalled.

We had to use 3000ft runways or longer for this, and
even that was edgy.

It was fun for a little while, until I realized that an
off-field landing would be, gulp, interesting. I'm
NOT a fan of high stall (or max "sink") speeds.

The interesting thing about a canard glider, however, is
that the weight to span ratio means something different because of
two wings. Maybe a good way to get out of using this
ratio for experimentals? ;)

I suspect that if the 32:1 ratio I saw for the Solitaire is correct,
the forward canard was a "stall all at once" design,
so keeping the nose unscarred must have been "interesting."

In article om>,
RichardFreytag > wrote:
>
>Bo Brunsgaard wrote:
>> wrote in message
om>...
>> > btw that photo is here:
>> > http://soaring.aerobatics.ws/Soaring_Index/1984/1984Mar_full.jpg
>>
>> It's a Rutan Solitaire, unless I'm very much mistaken.
>>
>> Self-launcher with an interesting engine installation concept. The
>> engine is placed in the fuselage in front of the pilot rather than in
>> the rear fuselage.
>>
>> I seem to recall that one of them was built here in Denmark in the
>> late 1980's or early 90's, either from a kit or bottom-up from
>> drawings. I think it was sold out of the country a few years later.
>>
>> Bo Brunsgaard
>
>I communicated back in the late 1980s with a US gentleman that was
>selling a Rutan Solitaire homebuilt you see in the picture (email
>lost). He indicated some concern about his Rutan Solitaire being
>tricky for an inexperienced pilot. Apparently the canard was designed
>to stall first causing a nose pitch down - as you would expect. Except
>that the transition could be abrupt and in the landing flare this would
>put your nose abruptly in contact with the pavement.
>
>Perhaps this thread will get forwarded to said owner and he'll fill in
>the details.
>
>Best,
>Richard
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Does it surprise you that a forward wing built for high
performance also has an abrupt stall? It wouldn't surprise me.

I do wonder how yaw control was done. For the Speed Canard, it was wingtip
"airbrakes" so you just slowed down one or the other.
If you hit both, it worked to just slow down.

In article >,
F.L. Whiteley > wrote:
>>
>Kind of defeats the purpose of having a canard. Perhaps it was built wrong.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Andy Blackburn]

At 06:00 07 March 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:

>Hmm. The last few have been conventional (SS1/WhiteKnight/GlobalF
>>lyer)
>but the starship, proteus and boomerang are all canard.
> As are the UAVs
>I think.


Starship was more than 20 years ago - not sure about
the others.

Certainly the argument that canards are more efficient
or inherently safer has been debunked by now. The Starship
was barely faster than a King Air, burned more fuel
and had a smaller cabin. It was also significantly
more expensive to produce -- however, it did look cool.
You may have noticed that Beech has quietly been buying
them back and grinding them up.

9B