Joseph M Snow <1flashq@...>
I am not an aeronautical engineer. What I have heard:
The GU is laminar flow. It has low drag characteristics. It is very efficient. The only problem encountered with it was contamination , e.g. water, bugs, interupped the laminar flow causing loss of lift. Vortex generators corrected this problem keeping the airflow intact. And the vorex generaors did not impose an efficiency penalty. There are numerous Q2 flying with the original GU just fine. However, he GU is paired with VW engines. With two people (170 lbs+), baggage, and full fuel, performance on take off was marginal. Quickie Aircraft Corp decided to correct the airfoil contamination problem and the marginal performance by going to the O-200 engine. The GU canard could not support the addiional weight of the heaver engine on he ground withou sagging. So, enter he LS1 canard with a tubular, carbon fiber spar to support the weight and not be susceptable to contamination. Yet, all airfoils are compromises. The LS1 is not as efficient as the GU; it was more
draggy. The additional horsepower of the O-200 made this fact not as noticable.
Here is an idea. Remove the canard from the Painsville airframe. Cut the canard at BL
00, rebuild it with anhedral and wheels. Change the cockpit to a single seat version, add fuel to the side consoles or behind the pilot. Get the new Revmaster 100 hp. And you have a single seat screamer. Just add vortex generators
eric kelsheimer <ekelsheimer@...> wrote:
Is the LS1 canard and wing air foil so much better that its worth rebuilding the Canard and wing.? Thanks for the reply
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.