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

Brad Walker

Maybe I'm missing something but one does have all the information. Or at least it seems that way to me. You have all the information needed to do design analysis (i.e. plans, actual built planes to test with, relics to do destructive testing with, etc.)

Maybe I don't understand but one should be able to derive the V-speeds appropriately.

-brad w.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Rob de Bie robdebie@... [Q-LIST] <Q-LIST@...> wrote:

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.


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
>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

Join to automatically receive all group messages.