Re: Open-source / community certification-like analysis of homebuilt air


Rob de Bie
 

Hi Richard,

I've read many of the early Canard Pushers, a couple of hundred pages so far, and indeed they make very interesting reading! When I wrote my first posting, I was thinking specifically about the Q1 and Q2, where the original company went bankrupt, and one of the designers is deceased, so probably most of the documentation was lost. You might need to reverse-engineer the design then.

Still, I think there's still a lot of information not available publicly, that could be generated by a common effort. Just one example: the design speeds used in the design: VA, VC and VD. If you install a bigger engine, fly faster, you might exceed them. Yet I've never seen them for any homebuilt design. Same for stresses, to what stress levels is the design safe? What if you increase the mass, which happens all the time. Knowing the design work would allow a check of these questions.

Rob

At 20:50 11 02 2017, you wrote:
Hi Rob,
Most popular designs are well tested to destruction and improvements are
tested properly.
The Long eze is a good example, and if you read the Canard Pushers that
Burt published, he details all the testing that RAF and his associates
undertook.
If you have not read the Canard Pushers it sounds like you would enjoy
it, as it tracks the development of most of his designs.
In this day and age of Catia modeling and multiple Stress simulations,
its great to see that manufacturers are still forced to waggle the wings
until that fall off to prove the guy with the calculator and pencil or
the latest fatigue simulator has not got it wrong again don't you think ?

Richard Thomson
TriQ200
VV283
UK.


------------------------------------
Posted by: Richard Thomson <richard@...>
------------------------------------

Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links


Join main@Q-List.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.