Fast glass biplanes

And if the engine quits, you want to be in the Long-EZ, not
the Glasair -- it glides much better.

That's a questionable statement!!

Compare the following for survivability in an accident:
* slower touchdown speed
* deformation of the structure to absorb energy
* lack of intrusions into the crew area (survivable space)

Looks to me like the Glasair would be much more survivable... not that
I'm personally interested in running the experiments

Ed "I'm supposed to teach a class on this stuff next term" Wischmeyer

"Ed Wischmeyer" wrote in message
...
And if the engine quits, you want to be in the Long-EZ, not
the Glasair -- it glides much better.

That's a questionable statement!!

Compare the following for survivability in an accident:
* slower touchdown speed
* deformation of the structure to absorb energy
* lack of intrusions into the crew area (survivable space)

Looks to me like the Glasair would be much more survivable... not that
I'm personally interested in running the experiments

Okay Ed, I'll take the bait. I assume you're taking issue with which
airplane you'd rather be in, not which one glides better. With engine off
and prop stopped and 80kn, a Long will glide losing 5-700 fpm. Tough to
match that in a Glasair. This would give the Long alarger raidus in which
to find a suitable landing place.

Slower touchdown speed? Unless at a very low gross weight, a Long would be
hard-pressed to get under 60 kn. It's part of the design, I assume, to
assure that the main wong won't stall. The Glasair could probably do
better.

Deformation of the structure? They're both glass -- don't know how you
could say one was better than the other.

Lack of intrusions? The Long's got the nosegear crank, but the Glasair's
got the sticks ... uh ... down *there*. Which is worse? I don't know.

As I said before, the whole reason for a canard airplane is for it's stall-
and spin-limiting abilities, not because it is "more efficient."

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:25:33 +0000, Fred in Florida wrote:


"Ed Wischmeyer" wrote in message
...
And if the engine quits, you want to be in the Long-EZ, not the
Glasair -- it glides much better.

That's a questionable statement!!

Compare the following for survivability in an accident: * slower
touchdown speed
* deformation of the structure to absorb energy * lack of intrusions
into the crew area (survivable space)

Okay Ed, I'll take the bait. I assume you're taking issue with which
airplane you'd rather be in, not which one glides better. With engine off
and prop stopped and 80kn, a Long will glide losing 5-700 fpm. Tough to
match that in a Glasair. This would give the Long alarger raidus in which
to find a suitable landing place.

Lack of intrusions? The Long's got the nosegear crank, but the Glasair's
got the sticks ... uh ... down *there*. Which is worse? I don't know.


If I'm going to be in a crash, and it isn't on flat ground, I would rather
have the engine ahead of me than behind me. I figure it has a bit less
chance of ending up in the cockpit that way.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com