Dumb Canard Question.

[Russell Kent]

Steven Johansen wrote:

> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>
> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
> for a more esoteric reason?

The reason is because on those designs the static Cg is only
slightly ahead of the main landing gear. Without the pilot aboard
there is a very real risk that a gust of wind will tip the
aircraft back onto its butt. Collapsing the nose gear when parked
shifts the Cg forward.

The next question you're going to ask is "why don't the builders
move the main landing gear aft?" Two possible reasons: moving the
gear aft might make unsticking/rotation on takeoff a much too
exciting event (think uncontrolled stall on takeoff), and the main
gear has a tendency to throw up runway debris which we'd rather
not have pass through the propeller disk.

Russell Kent

[Juan Jimenez]

With the nose on the ground it becomes almost impossible for anything but a
near-tropical-storm-force gust of wind (or higher) to move the airplane.

"Steven Johansen" > wrote in message
. au...
> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>
> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
> for a more esoteric reason?
>
> Cheers
>
> Steven
>
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message
...
> Steven Johansen wrote:
>
> > Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> > parked with their noses resting on the ground?
> >
> > Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
> > for a more esoteric reason?
>
> The reason is because on those designs the static Cg is only
> slightly ahead of the main landing gear. Without the pilot aboard
> there is a very real risk that a gust of wind will tip the
> aircraft back onto its butt. Collapsing the nose gear when parked
> shifts the Cg forward.
>
Snip---------

> Russell Kent
>

So, why doesn't some clever builder make the main gear swing back when the
parking brake is set and swing forward again when the pilot is in the
cockpit and the brake released?

That would solve a lot of problems with small pushers.

Bill Daniels

[Morgans]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Russell Kent" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steven Johansen wrote:
> >
> > > Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> > > parked with their noses resting on the ground?
> > >
> > > Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
> > > for a more esoteric reason?
> >
> > The reason is because on those designs the static Cg is only
> > slightly ahead of the main landing gear. Without the pilot aboard
> > there is a very real risk that a gust of wind will tip the
> > aircraft back onto its butt. Collapsing the nose gear when parked
> > shifts the Cg forward.
> >
> Snip---------
>
> > Russell Kent
> >
>
> So, why doesn't some clever builder make the main gear swing back when the
> parking brake is set and swing forward again when the pilot is in the
> cockpit and the brake released?
>
> That would solve a lot of problems with small pushers.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
Three reasons.
Weight, weight, and weight.

Why not do what they have been doing, and not add 1 extra ounce?

Beats me!
--
Jim in NC

[Del Rawlins]

On 07 Oct 2003 07:44 AM, Steven Johansen posted the following:
<snip>

Steven, you ever spend any time in Cordova, AK? If not, then never mind,
'cause in that case I am remembering someone else.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Paul Lee]

Another may be that if main gear is moved aft a more heftier
front NG would be needed. Keeping most of the load on main gear keeps
the cost down.

Dont know why cozy's, MK IV, etc. don't spread the main gear more.
The main RG on my SQ2000 is 11' apart with little chance of
throwing debris on the 66" prop.

----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

Russell Kent > wrote in message >...
> ............................ "why don't the builders
> move the main landing gear aft?" Two possible reasons: moving the
> gear aft might make unsticking/rotation on takeoff a much too
> exciting event (think uncontrolled stall on takeoff), and the main
> gear has a tendency to throw up runway debris which we'd rather
> not have pass through the propeller disk.
>
> Russell Kent

[Corrie]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message >...

> So, why doesn't some clever builder make the main gear swing back when the
> parking brake is set and swing forward again when the pilot is in the
> cockpit and the brake released?

Because smart designers and builders follow Kelly Johnson's credo:
"simplicate and add lightness."

[John Ousterhout]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:44:24 -0700, "Steven Johansen"
> wrote:

> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
>parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>
> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
>for a more esoteric reason?

They are all pointed towards Mojave and bowing to worship Burt Rutan.

- J.O.-

[Steven Johansen]

Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
parked with their noses resting on the ground?

Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
for a more esoteric reason?

Cheers

Steven

[sean trost]

ahkbar rutan !

kif, kif yer killing me....

Sean nyuk,nyuk Trost

John Ousterhout wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:44:24 -0700, "Steven Johansen"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
>>parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>>
>> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
>>for a more esoteric reason?
>
>
> They are all pointed towards Mojave and bowing to worship Burt Rutan.
>
> - J.O.-
>

[Big John]

Steven

I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the cockpit
rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then crank
the nose gear down to take off position.

Without this you would need some type of a boarding ladder to get in
and out of the cockpit.

Anyone support my memory?

Big John


On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:44:24 -0700, "Steven Johansen"
> wrote:

> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
>parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>
> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
>for a more esoteric reason?
>
> Cheers
>
> Steven
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:

> Steven
>
> I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the cockpit
> rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then crank
> the nose gear down to take off position.
>
> Without this you would need some type of a boarding ladder to get in
> and out of the cockpit.
>
> Anyone support my memory?
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:44:24 -0700, "Steven Johansen"
> > wrote:
>
> > Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> >parked with their noses resting on the ground?
> >
> > Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
> >for a more esoteric reason?


IIRC, the Rutan canards are a bit tail heavy with ethe gear down and
nobody in them. They are stable with the NG retracted and nobody in them.

[Dave Hyde]

Big John wrote:

> I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the cockpit
> rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then crank
> the nose gear down to take off position.

I've been in a Berkut where the owner did this (electrically
actuated gear) but I can't imagine doing it with manual EZ gear.
Of course I couldn't imagine doing it in the Berkut either, but
he insisted.

Dave 'kneel' Hyde

[Dave Hyde]

Steven Johansen wrote:

> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
> parked with their noses resting on the ground?

Because with the nose gear retracted there's
nothing to keep the nose up :-)

Dave 'MOTO' Hyde

[David O]

Big John > wrote:

>Steven
>
>I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the cockpit
>rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then crank
>the nose gear down to take off position.
>
>Without this you would need some type of a boarding ladder to get in
>and out of the cockpit.
>
>Anyone support my memory?
>
>Big John

No ladder necessary for most folks. EZs have a step that facilitates
cockpit entry with the nose gear extended. It's sort of like mounting
a horse by putting your foot in the stirrup.

Here is a picture of my plane and the step,

http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/Images/DSC00517bSM.JPG

Left foot on the step, left hand on the longeron, right leg up, over,
and in. As for rear seat passengers, entry is no problem for the
young and agile but sometimes problematic for older folks.

The nose down parking position is sometimes referred to as the
"grazing position", which is especially appropriate when parked on
grass. :)

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Morgans]

"David O" > wrote >
> No ladder necessary for most folks. EZs have a step that facilitates
> cockpit entry with the nose gear extended. It's sort of like mounting
> a horse by putting your foot in the stirrup.
>
> Here is a picture of my plane and the step,
>
> http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/Images/DSC00517bSM.JPG
>
>
> David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
So that's a step! All this time, I was thinking nose dragger - literally,
and those were handles to get the plane pointed the right way! <vbg>
--
Jim in NC

[David O]

"Morgans" > wrote:

>So that's a step! All this time, I was thinking nose dragger - literally,
>and those were handles to get the plane pointed the right way! <vbg>
>--
>Jim in NC

Glad to have cleared up *that* misconception! :)

Thanks for your nice comments over in r.a.p.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
John Ousterhout > wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:44:24 -0700, "Steven Johansen"
> wrote:
>
>> Why are many Canard designs (Cozy , Eze's etc)
>>parked with their noses resting on the ground?
>>
>> Is it simply to reduce wear on the Nose gear or
>>for a more esoteric reason?
>
>They are all pointed towards Mojave and bowing to worship Burt Rutan.
>
>- J.O.-
>

AHA! When they're on the ground, they're Occident prone?

[Big John]

David

Beautiful bird. You do good work <G> And take good pictures.

See the step but don't remember ever seeing on the original
plan/birds????? which I looked at years ago for possibility of
building. May have missed that minor detail.

The EZ had a carnard/rain problem. Is that fixed now or do you have to
fly around the problem?

Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?

Have a nice day

Big John


On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:08:26 -0400, David O
> wrote:

>Big John > wrote:
>
>>Steven
>>
>>I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the cockpit
>>rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then crank
>>the nose gear down to take off position.
>>
>>Without this you would need some type of a boarding ladder to get in
>>and out of the cockpit.
>>
>>Anyone support my memory?
>>
>>Big John
>
>No ladder necessary for most folks. EZs have a step that facilitates
>cockpit entry with the nose gear extended. It's sort of like mounting
>a horse by putting your foot in the stirrup.
>
>Here is a picture of my plane and the step,
>
>http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/Images/DSC00517bSM.JPG
>
>Left foot on the step, left hand on the longeron, right leg up, over,
>and in. As for rear seat passengers, entry is no problem for the
>young and agile but sometimes problematic for older folks.
>
>The nose down parking position is sometimes referred to as the
>"grazing position", which is especially appropriate when parked on
>grass. :)
>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>

[Model Flyer]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> David
>
> Beautiful bird. You do good work <G> And take good pictures.
>
> See the step but don't remember ever seeing on the original
> plan/birds????? which I looked at years ago for possibility of
> building. May have missed that minor detail.
>
> The EZ had a carnard/rain problem. Is that fixed now or do you have
to
> fly around the problem?
>

Never mind the rain problem, friend who has one got a couple of
youngsters to wash his down, he spent the next hour moping out inside
the cockpit. They used a power washer to get rid of the shampoo and
wern't too careful where they directed the spray.
--

..
--
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe
whatever at antispam dot net
No email address given because of spam.
Antispam trap in place


> Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?
>
> Have a nice day
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 21:08:26 -0400, David O
> > wrote:
>
> >Big John > wrote:
> >
> >>Steven
> >>
> >>I heard many years ago that the nose on the ground put the
cockpit
> >>rail down where you could just step into the cockpit and then
crank
> >>the nose gear down to take off position.
> >>
> >>Without this you would need some type of a boarding ladder to get
in
> >>and out of the cockpit.
> >>
> >>Anyone support my memory?
> >>
> >>Big John
> >
> >No ladder necessary for most folks. EZs have a step that
facilitates
> >cockpit entry with the nose gear extended. It's sort of like
mounting
> >a horse by putting your foot in the stirrup.
> >
> >Here is a picture of my plane and the step,
> >
>
>http://www.airplanezone.com/Oshkosh/Scrapbook2002/Images/DSC00517bSM
..JPG
> >
> >Left foot on the step, left hand on the longeron, right leg up,
over,
> >and in. As for rear seat passengers, entry is no problem for the
> >young and agile but sometimes problematic for older folks.
> >
> >The nose down parking position is sometimes referred to as the
> >"grazing position", which is especially appropriate when parked on
> >grass. :)
> >
> >David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
> >
>

[David O]

Big John > wrote:

>See the step but don't remember ever seeing on the original
>plan/birds????? which I looked at years ago for possibility of
>building. May have missed that minor detail.

The step on my Long EZ is per plans. I don't know what kind of step
the Varieze plans called for, if any. Maybe someone with a Varieze
could chime in. I'd like to know.

>The EZ had a carnard/rain problem. Is that fixed now or do you have to
>fly around the problem?

Well, it's not fixed on my airplane. If I want to fix it, I have to
build a new canard. The effect can be trimmed out. Variable rain
requires frequent re-trimming, of course. I largely avoid flying in
the rain because of my wood prop. Interestingly, the canard will let
me know it's raining even when the rain is so light that I can't see
it. It's my drizzle/virga detection system. <g> On several occasions
it has clued me in to virga that I would have been oblivious to
otherwise.

>Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?

I get 162 kt TAS at 8,500 full throttle leaned for best power. The
engine is a 150 hp O-320. I have wheel pants in the hangar that would
give me another 5 kt or so if I would only install them. <g> Plus
there are a number of other things I could do to clean it up
aerodynamically. Interestingly, the boarding step alone knocks close
to 1 kt off the top end.

Regards,

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Have seen lots of figures. What's your HONEST cruise at say 8K?
>
>I get 162 kt TAS at 8,500 full throttle leaned for best power. The
>engine is a 150 hp O-320. I have wheel pants in the hangar that would
>give me another 5 kt or so if I would only install them. <g> Plus
>there are a number of other things I could do to clean it up
>aerodynamically. Interestingly, the boarding step alone knocks close
>to 1 kt off the top end.
>
>Regards,
>
>David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fascinating, Dave.
Not the TAS, but your naked honesty. ;-)

P.S.
Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.


Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver

[David O]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
>Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver

I'm not racing anyone until I get a new prop, install a spinner,
install those damn wheel pants, and do a few other aerodynamic
cleanups. Maybe next summer if you are still game. In the meantime,
you could pit your 150 hp RV-3 against Klaus Savier's *120* hp Varieze
and get your pants blown off today. :)


Dave O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

P.S. Klaus Savier came in fourth this year at Reno in the Sport Class
Silver race in an O-200 powered Varieze. His average lap speed was
216 kt. This was just 6 kt slower than third place finisher John
Harmon in his 400 hp O-540 powered "Harmon Rocket III", an RV-4
derivative.

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Would be fun getting next to your EZ. for a shootout.
>>Best you PUT YOUR PANTS ON on first, tho.
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb -- fully clothed RV3 driver
>
>I'm not racing anyone until I get a new prop, install a spinner,
>install those damn wheel pants, and do a few other aerodynamic
>cleanups. Maybe next summer if you are still game. In the meantime,
>you could pit your 150 hp RV-3 against Klaus Savier's *120* hp Varieze
>and get your pants blown off today. :)

Sure, and....
I want to race in NASCAR with a show room Ford, Chevy, etc, too.

However, I might consider racing Klaus out of a 700 foot
super rough sod strip with 60 foot trees on each end. <g>

There are RV-3's running with aerodynamic mods that bump the
speed up, but I'm not in that group and have no plans to be.
Currently, I have no spinner and have just changed props.
It is not as good for racing as the wood one I had.
Sounds like a fairer test could be had now, not later. ; (

>Dave O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com
>
>P.S. Klaus Savier came in fourth this year at Reno in the Sport Class
>Silver race in an O-200 powered Varieze. His average lap speed was
>216 kt. This was just 6 kt slower than third place finisher John
>Harmon in his 400 hp O-540 powered "Harmon Rocket III", an RV-4
>derivative.

There is a lot to be said for elegance.... and brute force.
If I was racing, I'd like both in a project.

Perhaps you have some ideas about the flat plate
areas of these two aircraft... that didn't win 1st place?

For grins...
How much more horsepower, money and RPM's would
your EZ need to fly 216 and 222 knots around pylons?



Barnyard BOb -- no substitute for cubic dollar$.. and luck.

[David O]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote:

>However, I might consider racing Klaus out of a 700 foot
>super rough sod strip with 60 foot trees on each end. <g>

Touché!

>There are RV-3's running with aerodynamic mods that bump the
>speed up, but I'm not in that group and have no plans to be.
>Currently, I have no spinner and have just changed props.
>It is not as good for racing as the wood one I had.
>Sounds like a fairer test could be had now, not later. ; (

Racing one handicapped plane against another doesn't exactly float my
boat. I either race with my plane in good form or I don't race at
all.

>For grins...
>How much more horsepower, money and RPM's would
>your EZ need to fly 216 and 222 knots around pylons?

Let's go with 216 kt -- I don't know about the money but the power
would have to be somewhere around 220 hp with my plane as it is now.
Significantly less if cleaned up. As I am having trouble getting
motivated to even install wheel pants, I just don't see Reno in my
future. :)

As I have noted before, I think the RV series is a marvelous design
and better in many respects than the Long EZ. Indeed, even Burt Rutan
concedes that "the prop belongs in the front." Nonetheless, don't
look for me to toss my old bird to the heap anytime soon.

David O -- http://www.AirplaneZone.com

[Russell Kent]

David O wrote:

> As I have noted before, I think the RV series is a marvelous design
> and better in many respects than the Long EZ. Indeed, even Burt Rutan
> concedes that "the prop belongs in the front."

If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO*
boats are that way? :-)

Russell Kent

[Ron Natalie]

"Russell Kent" > wrote in message ...

> If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO*
> boats are that way? :-)

Boats don't fly very well. Wilbur and Orville found that trying to make analogies
between boat and airplane propellers was totally useless. Nobody's proved them
wrong yet.

[Russell Kent]

Russell Kent wrote:

> If having the propellor on the front were such a good idea, how come *NO* boats are
> that way? :-)

Ron Natalie replied:

> Boats don't fly very well.

Tell that to a Catalina. :-)

> Wilbur and Orville found that trying to make analogies between boat and airplane
> propellers was totally useless. Nobody's proved them wrong yet.

OK, humor aside, why should it be that comparisons between the regimes is "totally
useless". Both devices impart a force parallel to the axis by moving a mass of the
surrounding fluid backwards. While the obvious differences in density and Reynolds
numbers makes comparing airfoils to hydrofoils dubious, it isn't obvious to me that
comparisons of "ended-ness" are invalid. Can anyone explain why?

For a point of data, I believe that some new very large vessels (cruise ships? VLCC?)
have multiple propellors that, while being very near the aft of the vessel, are mounted
on pylons such that the blades preceed the pylon through the water. I have to imagine
that the engineers must have a reason for doing so.

Russell Kent

[Neal Fulco]

Would this work? Getting back to the CG issue.....How about having
the nose gear PARTIALLY retract. The nose gear would have 2
positions. Position 1 would have the plane in the PARKED ( partially
retracted ) position. The plane would be level or slightly nose down
to facilitate easier boarding. The main gear would be far enough back
so it wouldn't tip over on it's tail when no one is aboard. ( Velocity
) For landing and takeoff, put the nosegear in the EXTENDED
position.( Position 2 ) The CG would move a little more aft, but more
importantly, the plane would be at an increased angle of attack to
facilitate better take offs and landings. That way, the plane
wouldn't have to rotate so much to get airborne and on landing, the
plane wouldn't have to "slam" down so hard (far).Just a thought.
Neal

[Morgans]

"Neal Fulco" > wrote in message
om...
> Would this work? Getting back to the CG issue.....How about having
> the nose gear PARTIALLY retract. The nose gear would have 2
> positions. Position 1 would have the plane in the PARKED ( partially
> retracted ) position. The plane would be level or slightly nose down
> to facilitate easier boarding. The main gear would be far enough back
> so it wouldn't tip over on it's tail when no one is aboard. ( Velocity
> ) For landing and takeoff, put the nosegear in the EXTENDED
> position.( Position 2 ) The CG would move a little more aft, but more
> importantly, the plane would be at an increased angle of attack to
> facilitate better take offs and landings. That way, the plane
> wouldn't have to rotate so much to get airborne and on landing, the
> plane wouldn't have to "slam" down so hard (far).Just a thought.
> Neal

Why change what isn't broken?
--
Jim in NC

[Scott McQueen]

In article >, Russell Kent > wrote:

> While the obvious differences in density and
> Reynolds
>numbers makes comparing airfoils to hydrofoils dubious, it isn't obvious to me
> that
>comparisons of "ended-ness" are invalid. Can anyone explain why?
>

I have read a few books on boat design. The only author
that said anything about front versus rear propellers
thought that a front mounted propeller would be slightly
more efficient. He then stated that he would never put one
on the front of a boat because accidental groundings and
collisions with debris floating in the water at or just
below the surface would damage or destroy a front mounted
propeller. A rear propeller is protected by the bulk of the
boat as it moves through the water.

I doubt that any aircraft designer feels a need to concern
himself with debris in the path of a flying airplane.

1¾
************************************************** *
The reply e-dress is a dead end.
If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

[Neal Fulco]

Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
park my plane with the nose on the ground.

Neal

[Neal Fulco]

(Scott McQueen) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Russell Kent > wrote:
>
> > While the obvious differences in density and
> > Reynolds
> >numbers makes comparing airfoils to hydrofoils dubious, it isn't obvious to me
> > that
> >comparisons of "ended-ness" are invalid. Can anyone explain why?
> >
>
> I have read a few books on boat design. The only author
> that said anything about front versus rear propellers
> thought that a front mounted propeller would be slightly
> more efficient. He then stated that he would never put one
> on the front of a boat because accidental groundings and
> collisions with debris floating in the water at or just
> below the surface would damage or destroy a front mounted
> propeller. A rear propeller is protected by the bulk of the
> boat as it moves through the water.
>
> I doubt that any aircraft designer feels a need to concern
> himself with debris in the path of a flying airplane.
>
> 1¾
> ************************************************** *
> The reply e-dress is a dead end.
> If you want me to read your e-mail, send it to "dropbox" at the same ISP.

Unless you're the guy that designed the Space Shuttle.

Neal

[Barnyard BOb --]

(Neal Fulco) wrote:

>Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
>solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
>park my plane with the nose on the ground.
>
> Neal
++++++++++++++++++++++

Troublemaker.



Barnyard BOb --

[Russell Kent]

Neal Fulco wrote:

> Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
> solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
> park my plane with the nose on the ground.

It's only an issue if you don't have the plane tied down. Use a nose tie
down and you don't have to park it with the nose on the ground.

Russell Kent

[Neal Fulco]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote in message >...
> (Neal Fulco) wrote:
>
> >Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
> >solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
> >park my plane with the nose on the ground.
> >
> > Neal
> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Troublemaker.
>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --



Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks

Neal

[Rick Pellicciotti]

"Neal Fulco" > wrote in message
om...
> Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
> solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
> park my plane with the nose on the ground.
>
> Neal

Neal,
The Velocity's have quite a bit more weight on the nose gear that the
typical EZ's do. The Velocity's are able to get away with this because they
have much larger canards (relative to the wing area) and slotted elevators
(like fowler flaps) which allow them to rotate at a reasonable speed. They
do have considerable runway runs, like all canards do, both take off and
landing.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.belleairetours.com

[Barnyard BOb --]

>> >Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
>> >solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
>> >park my plane with the nose on the ground.
>> >
>> > Neal
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Troublemaker.
>>
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>
>
>Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
>a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
>may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
>talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
>them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
>takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
>park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
>the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
>main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
>wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks
>
> Neal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sure do, and....
I hope you understand my tongue in cheek
remark without me putting a smiley on it. <g>


Barnyard BOb --

[Neal Fulco]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote in message >...
> >> >Good point, and the "nose on the ground" approach is arguably the best
> >> >solution. Just a matter of preference I guess. I'd just rather not
> >> >park my plane with the nose on the ground.
> >> >
> >> > Neal
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Troublemaker.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb --
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually, the reason behind my post if the first place was to solicit
> >a response letting me know if my idea would work or not. I know it
> >may not be the BEST solution, but I thought it WOULD work. I have not
> >talked to any Velocity drivers, but from anything I've read about
> >them,( the plane...not the pilots ) they don't seem to have any bad
> >takeoff or landing traits, so I'm curios as to how they are able to
> >park their planes without their "noses on the ground" and still have
> >the good traits assuming their empty weight CG is so far ahead of the
> >main gear that prevents a backward "tip-over". I know that sounds
> >wordy, but I think you understand my question. Thanks
> >
> > Neal
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Sure do, and....
> I hope you understand my tongue in cheek
> remark without me putting a smiley on it. <g>
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

I understood. Sometimes I come up with a " I wonder if this would
work " idea and I find the RAH group a good sounding board. I even
got a great physics lesson from a fellow poster the other day
regarding the construction of a wing spar. Great stuff..............

Neal

[OneSkyDog]

To keep them from tipping over backwards when no one is in them.