Board index

Sport Pilot Talk

The discussion forum for Sport Pilots and Light Sport Aircraft
* * * CHECK Out the Sport Pilot Talk Flight School and Rental Finder Map! * * * It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
Image

PERFORMANCE
VNE 180 m.p.h.
Vc 75% Power 165 m.p.h.
Va 120 m.p.h.
Vs 48 m.p.h.
Rate of Climb 850 f.p.m.
Service Ceiling 18500 ft.
Takeoff, 50 ft. obs 1200 ft.
Landing, 50 ft. ob 2000 ft.
Range, 75% pow 500 mi.
Fuel Capacity 15.0 gal.
Wing Loading 11.4 lb./sq. ft.
Power Loading 19.2 lb/hp
G load + 4.4
G load - 2.0
WEIGHTS
Gross 1150 lb.
Payload 545 lb.
Baggage Limit 20/70 lb.

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
Image

The only LSA with 'Jet Appeal'

Made For You

Stall speed, below 65Km/h (40 Mph).

High cruising speed, in excess of 250 km/h (150 Mph).

Excellent fuel economy and range: 7-hrs/1000 km (620miles).

4-cylinder, 4-stroke aircraft engine that runs on Avgas

or

Automotive fuel. (Rotax 912 S / 914)

Short take-off and landing.

Land on any strip, even on beaches.

Licensed to fly open, low noise emission, outstanding visibility:

Rear Engine with Jet style canopy.

Exceptionally light and strong,

Spacious comfort in a cockpit with conventional stick control.

This rugged, unique composite construction requires very little maintenance.



http://www.rmtaviation.com/

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 3945
Location: Lock Haven PA
CharlieTango wrote:
High cruising speed, in excess of 250 km/h (150 Mph).


Wait a minute. That's 131 knots, which I do believe is greater than 120 -- didn't you say LSA??

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
drseti wrote:
CharlieTango wrote:
High cruising speed, in excess of 250 km/h (150 Mph).


Wait a minute. That's 131 knots, which I do believe is greater than 120 -- didn't you say LSA??


The LSA Version

The LSA version of the Bateleur will be offered only with fixed under carriage and a ground adjustable propeller, to meet all of the requirements for the aircraft to be flown with a Sport Pilot License.

http://www.rmtaviation.com/Models.htm

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
How about a Hawker?

Image

http://www.designbuzz.com/light-sport-a ... r-flights/

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
Ok, I'm intrigued a canard LSA has merit.

I think the way to go is a plans built dragonfly, with the mains on the canard tips, and a small motor to be LSA legal.

It has its limitations but the economy would be unreal.

Image

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:17 pm
Posts: 110
Location: Bellevue, WA
CharlieTango wrote:
Ok, I'm intrigued a canard LSA has merit.

I think the way to go is a plans built dragonfly, with the mains on the canard tips, and a small motor to be LSA legal.

It has its limitations but the economy would be unreal.

:) Being a lazy lot I'd keep wondering why do I need to build two wings while everybody else gets away with one. I'd also have concerns on putting wheels on canard tips. Remember, one cannot make a full stall landings in this configuration. One has to just plant it on a pavement . To build a third wing and a fuse and a prop etc. after just one landing would be too much work. BTW Dragonfly I think normally is equipped with pretty small motor - VW 75hp...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 07, 2013 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Posts: 1039
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
tu16 wrote:
:) Being a lazy lot I'd keep wondering why do I need to build two wings while everybody else gets away with one. I'd also have concerns on putting wheels on canard tips. Remember, one cannot make a full stall landings in this configuration. One has to just plant it on a pavement . To build a third wing and a fuse and a prop etc. after just one landing would be too much work. BTW Dragonfly I think normally is equipped with pretty small motor - VW 75hp...


Its not my thread, I'm just playing along.

Do you realize you can buy a plane like this for about $11,000 and you might get 40mi/gal? So you need to fly it on at 80mph, thats how most of the people I know land their LSA anyway. :roll:

_________________
http://www.10kvacationrentals.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2013 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
tu16 wrote:
Being a lazy lot I'd keep wondering why do I need to build two wings while everybody else gets away with one.


For the most part, does not nearly "everybody else" have two wings - typically one on the front and one on the back?

I think the logic is that the conventional arrangement is inherently inefficient. Why? With the CG ahead of the center of lift of the main wing, the horizontal stabilizer has to provide a down force. So the main wing has to lift the weight of the plane plus the tail down force*.

The logic behind a canard is that if you're going to have a second wing, it might as well share in the lifting.


*its why most planes will be faster loaded towards the rear of their CG envelope - less tail downforce = less lift needed = less induced drag. If you have a plane with adjustable seats, in really smooth air you might see an extra knot or so just by sliding your seat back. Mooney salesmen were allegedly well versed in this!

_________________
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:17 pm
Posts: 110
Location: Bellevue, WA
FastEddieB wrote:
tu16 wrote:
Being a lazy lot I'd keep wondering why do I need to build two wings while everybody else gets away with one.


For the most part, does not nearly "everybody else" have two wings - typically one on the front and one on the back?

I think the logic is that the conventional arrangement is inherently inefficient. Why? With the CG ahead of the center of lift of the main wing, the horizontal stabilizer has to provide a down force. So the main wing has to lift the weight of the plane plus the tail down force*.

The logic behind a canard is that if you're going to have a second wing, it might as well share in the lifting.


*its why most planes will be faster loaded towards the rear of their CG envelope - less tail downforce = less lift needed = less induced drag. If you have a plane with adjustable seats, in really smooth air you might see an extra knot or so just by sliding your seat back. Mooney salesmen were allegedly well versed in this!


:) I was waiting for somebody to pick on the reference to "one wing" :) You're right - both canard and "traditional tail" configurations are "two surface" configurations. Moreover horizontal stabilizer very often always work as a lifting surface, instead of providing a "downward pressure". What I meant is an obvious difference in labor in building small control surface vs. building yet another full scale wing. Although I do admire "Dragonfly". Although it is more a biplane than canard configuration. And it did have wheels in canards in Mk1 :) Until too many pilots did a belly flop in them.

Image

I'm familiar with canard arguable "efficiency argument" and the logic of sharing the "lifting". 40mpg in light canard plane may look impressive - but Pipistrel built a plane in traditional configuration to win NASA LSA efficiency prize with 80mpg. There's plenty of inefficiencies in canard configurations and devils in the details and in the end it doesn't seem to hold any universal "efficiency" advantages. If anybody interested in gory details:
http://www.apollocanard.com/4_canard%20myths.htm
http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_q ... anard.html


Last edited by tu16 on Thu May 09, 2013 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
tu16 wrote:
Moreover horizontal stabilizer very often always work as a lifting surface, instead of providing a "downward pressure".


In a conventional aircraft?

If so, when?

_________________
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:17 pm
Posts: 110
Location: Bellevue, WA
FastEddieB wrote:
tu16 wrote:
Moreover horizontal stabilizer very often always work as a lifting surface, instead of providing a "downward pressure".


In a conventional aircraft?

If so, when?


Not to rehash this quite exciting topic here - I found the thread on the topic that maybe outright fun to read :
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... &start=150


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 09, 2013 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Posts: 504
Location: Albuquerque, NM
FastEddieB wrote:
I think the logic is that the conventional arrangement is inherently inefficient. Why? With the CG ahead of the center of lift of the main wing, the horizontal stabilizer has to provide a down force.

Not true. All that's required for the static stability is for the main wing fly at larger angle of attack than the tail. The tail may be lifting. In fact it is in most of the pemitted loadings of original V35. I heard you could easily load a 172 like that, although I did not verify it myself.

_________________
http://zaitcev.mee.nu/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2013 5:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA
Let me review this and get back.

I did always think, and teach, that in most of our light planes, having the CG ahead of the center of lift had to cause a nose down moment. This is where stability came from.

In order to have zero tail down force, the CG and center of lift would have to be coincident. There would be no inherent stability.

In order to have the tail contributing to lift, the CG would have to be behind the center of lift - an inherently unstable arrangement.

But as I said, let me check my "bible" and get back with some ammunition (or lack thereof),

_________________
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 11, 2013 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:20 am
Posts: 82
I still think it would be neat to see an LSA design that incorporated the appropriate canard set-up, as well as a design that incorporated the V-Tail design, much like the V-Tail Bonanza. Just make it work and beneficial somehow.

Imagine a sleek high-wing, such as the P-2008 with a V-Tail or Canard or even both.

Imagine a sleek low-wing like Bristell with one or both of the same features as well.

Would look quite impressive imho!

If only I could draw!

My wife happens to be a Metallurgist, C.A.D. and 3-D Hard-Edge Designer, maybe I can talk her into helping me throw my image into a visible example, just for fun and entertainment of course? Then all of you engineering and aeronautical design experts can tell me everything that is so wrong about my thoughts of incorporating such features. Lol! :lol:

tl-3000pilot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Archive

[ Time : 0.085s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]