Musings on SOARING cover photos

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

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"

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.

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.

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

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----------

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