Increasing the static margin by rearranging weight distribution (and not increasing) will load the canard more and unload the wing. This will reduce the wing AOA and increase the canard AOA required for flight at any given speed. Of course the canard incidence is fixed although as elevator is actuated further, the effective canard AOA does increase to compensate for the reduced main wing AOA. That is up to the maximum elevator angle or canard stall, whichever occurs first.As I understand, by putting more weight in the nose ( ie; existing ballast, not extra weight ) then the canard carries more weight, while the main wings carry less. Guess that will require more nose trim ??? keeping the elevator in a more down position, as the canard itself cannot be trimmed separately.
Ok guys, what is being done is moving 50 pounds from the cabin to the nose. Total lift will be the same, a small reduction in lift from the main wing, an identical increase in lift for the canard. Small decrease in lift on the main wing will require a decrease in main wing AOA, the canard will also make the same small decrease, and then the elevator will have to be deflected down to increase lift from the canard enough to make the additional lift. How much AOA change? Tiny, in proportion to the change in lift. I suspect we will take 15-25 pounds off the main wing, which is carrying somewhere north of 2000 pounds. Yeah, less than a 1% reduction of Cl. Tiny to the point of being almost immeasurable, but you will be able to measure the increase in downward deflection of the elevator to carry the additional load on the canard.At about the 6:00 minute mark, he comments that with a more loaded canard, the AOA will be lower.
That's completely backwards, right?
I addressed the problems with that theory (which cannot be true) in post #70 on page 4 of this thread.Indeed, Velocity wrote in the Youtube comments that he thought the Raptor was 'nibbling at the stall' in the first flight. If that is true then increasing canard loading will just make the bob worse.
Around these parts... If the airport is big enough to own a plow there's diesel onsite.
Not exactly in fuel your plane configuration.
But fuel delivery to an airport isn't a challenge - lots of businesses setup to do this for mobile equipment (manlifts, zoombooms, construction generators). Fairly cheap to have delivered no jerry cans required.
I think that was my point, in that fueling the Raptor could???? pose serious logistical issues, bit like buying an electric car and charging points not available, not very good market research done then, ref availability !!!I was looking at model turbine engines the other day and while they can run on both diesel and jet A, you are required to use more oil on jet fuel.
I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes for an Audi, but I thought it was interesting.
We'll just switch to UL. The conversion to diesel would kill most of the GA fleet. Who's gonna spend $100k to re-engine a $50K Cherokee or C-172?If the future politicians ban leaded Avgas.... the diesel guys will suddenly be very popular.
Maybe the airport can sell JetA/diesel blend?