New to this site

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,007
Location
Orange County, California
Thanks, that makes it more understandable. I guess with proper training and experience you can recover from a stall.
Stalls in a conventional airplane are easy to avoid, and easy to resolve. Stalls in a canard or tandem-wing aircraft don't' happen, if the airplane is designed properly and flown within the designated CG envelope. Inverted stalls in a canard/tandem-wing airplane would be a nasty, nasty, NASTY thing, where the airplane tries to swap ends in the pitch axis. Fortunately, if inverted in a canard/tandem-wing aircraft, you probably wouldn't have enough pitch control authority to cause a stall in the first place, under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. In short, it's nothing you have to worry about, unless you really are absolutely determined to make it happen. Keep the right side down and you'll never have any trouble.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
Stalls in a conventional airplane are easy to avoid, and easy to resolve. Stalls in a canard or tandem-wing aircraft don't' happen, if the airplane is designed properly and flown within the designated CG envelope. Inverted stalls in a canard/tandem-wing airplane would be a nasty, nasty, NASTY thing, where the airplane tries to swap ends in the pitch axis. Fortunately, if inverted in a canard/tandem-wing aircraft, you probably wouldn't have enough pitch control authority to cause a stall in the first place, under all but the most extraordinary circumstances. In short, it's nothing you have to worry about, unless you really are absolutely determined to make it happen. Keep the right side down and you'll never have any trouble.
Thinking our loud here, with a canard configuration being “harder to stall to impossible” how does this affect the slow speed high bank angles? What I’m trying to say is if they won’t stall, then in a pattern at slower speeds and an overshoot on final, (kiss of death) a skid would or would not make the inboard wing drop and the plane roll into terrain??
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,259
Location
Fresno, California
Yes, modern canards are designed prevent the main wing from stalling. Unfortunately, stall alpha is also max lift coefficient, so the canard keeps you from reaching your max lift potential. That’s why they land a little faster than optimum.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
Yes, modern canards are designed prevent the main wing from stalling. Unfortunately, stall alpha is also max lift coefficient, so the canard keeps you from reaching your max lift potential. That’s why they land a little faster than optimum.
Hmm. I though the higher landing speeds was due to the comparative shorter wing span on the canard planes
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,007
Location
Orange County, California
Thinking our loud here, with a canard configuration being “harder to stall to impossible” how does this affect the slow speed high bank angles? What I’m trying to say is if they won’t stall, then in a pattern at slower speeds and an overshoot on final, (kiss of death) a skid would or would not make the inboard wing drop and the plane roll into terrain??
Any airplane can be forced to stall to a greater or lesser extent, if you abuse it enough. Canard configurations (and tandem-wing configurations are a subset of that larger group) are designed so that the canard, which is forward of the CG, stalls before the main wing, with some set "margin" of angle of attack between the two. The greater the margin, the "more safe" against main-wing stall the design is, but also the more main-wing lift coefficient it sacrifices at minimum controllable airspeed, when the canard is at its stalling angle and the main wing is at a lesser angle, by the amount of the stall margin designed into them. Therefore a small stall margin is desirable from a flight efficiency standpoint, but not from a stall-resistance standpoint. This is what BMCJ is talking about.

A skidding turn is creating a higher angle of attack on the inboard wing and canard, and especially on the former if the pilot tries to correct the roll with aileron. Unless there's a very small stall margin between the wing and canard, or it's a very extreme slipping turn, the canard should still start to stall and lower the nose before the wing does. But can a stall be forced if you sufficiently abuse the aircraft? Very likely yes. It would probably still be more-benign than a similarly-abused "conventional" wing-tail combination, because the canard is still going to let go first and start dropping the nose. But, "theoretically", it can probably be done.

A canard airplane does not absolve you of being a fully-competent pilot. Avoiding low-altitude uncoordinated turns is a basic piloting skill that you learn and practice, regardless of the type of airplane you fly. I think it's a mischaracterization to call a skidding turn at low speeds "the kiss of death," but it is more likely to result in a loss of control than the opposite, a slipping turn. Ideally, and if you're a well-practiced, well-taught pilot, you have the airplane in coordinated turns all the time, never skidding, and slipping when you want it to happen, deliberately. I think slips are a blast, myself. :)
 
Last edited:

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
Suppose I should read new member intros more often ;)

Q200, just put 50some hours in one this summer. I liked it... Bit small for me but owner was jockey sized and I'm closer to Sasquatch sized. Kind of like a kr2, same caveats emptor - a plane you fly by thinking what way you want to go, not grabbing the stick and making a large movement. That can take a bit of getting used to. Ground handling - once it got a proper alignment on the main, I found it super stable. It does take some getting used to...

I'll probably repeat what was said to me once upon a time... Vintage Mooney if you want that quick commuter. Mine replaced my Cherokee, love it. It's currently down in the USA now trying to get through paperwork hell (STC issues FAA guy is being difficult on the 1090 adsb top antenna for Canadian airspace). But you can get a nice M20 long body, with full IFR panels for fairly reasonable $.

But like you I do regular long hauls, 4-500mi and 1100mi trips as regular as weather allows usually weekly+. Still trying to find a faster / more cost efficient solution for the long hauls where I'm flying solo.
 
Last edited:

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
Suppose I should read new member intros more often ;)

Q200, just put 50some hours in one this summer. I liked it... Bit small for me but owner was jockey sized and I'm closer to Sasquatch sized. Kind of like a kr2, same caveats emptor - a plane you fly by thinking what way you want to go, not grabbing the stick and making a large movement. That can take a bit of getting used to. Ground handling - once it got a proper alignment on the main, I found it super stable. It does take some getting used to...

I'll probably repeat what was said to me once upon a time... Vintage Mooney if you want that quick commuter. Mine replaced my Cherokee, love it. It's currently down in the USA now trying to get through paperwork hell (STC issues FAA guy is being difficult on the 1090 adsb top antenna for Canadian airspace). But you can get a nice M20 long body, with full IFR panels for fairly reasonable $.

But like you I do regular long hauls, 4-500mi and 1100mi trips as regular as weather allows usually weekly+. Still trying to find a faster / more cost efficient solution for the long hauls where I'm flying solo.
Great to hear. I’m not a jockey and fortunately not a Sasquatch either.. 5’9” so I believe I can fit well in one.

What are the best and worst of the Q200’s? How fast did you cruise at for those 50 hrs?
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
if you're a well-practiced, well-taught pilot, you have the airplane in coordinated turns all the time, never skidding, and slipping when you want it to happen, deliberately. I think slips are a blast, myself. :)
I agree, I like slips especially for cross wind landings
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
Great to hear. I’m not a jockey and fortunately not a Sasquatch either.. 5’9” so I believe I can fit well in one.

What are the best and worst of the Q200’s? How fast did you cruise at for those 50 hrs?
Don't know enough about them, I a know finding a good one is unobtainium. The one I flew was maybe one of the last. Documented build, first flights and pireps in the QAC newsletters. In storage for a long time.

We're up a mile high, the engine was no c150 o200, the owner didn't say what had been done to it, just a twinkle in the eye and 'its not stock'. Once I really got used to it, I'd cruise in the 185 range, could cruise at 200, but you weren't getting far like that. Not enough fuel capacity. Decent mpg was down in the 150kt range (Im a speed nut, I'll admit it, I wasn't much interested in it's low speed end lol)
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
Don't know enough about them, I a know finding a good one is unobtainium. The one I flew was maybe one of the last. Documented build, first flights and pireps in the QAC newsletters. In storage for a long time.

We're up a mile high, the engine was no c150 o200, the owner didn't say what had been done to it, just a twinkle in the eye and 'its not stock'. Once I really got used to it, I'd cruise in the 185 range, could cruise at 200, but you weren't getting far like that. Not enough fuel capacity. Decent mpg was down in the 150kt range (Im a speed nut, I'll admit it, I wasn't much interested in it's low speed end lol)
How was it in turbulence? Was a crosswind landings a handful?

Thanks,
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
It's a smaller plane, it does get tossed around a bit by thermals and especially out in the mountains.

What little crosswind I got to experience in it, wasn't an issue. Owner just wasn't going to allow that to be explored...
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
It's a smaller plane, it does get tossed around a bit by thermals and especially out in the mountains.

What little crosswind I got to experience in it, wasn't an issue. Owner just wasn't going to allow that to be explored...
Good to know. It’s rare to find anyone with experience rather than an internet gossip
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
There's tons of quickie pireps, the quickie groups are still very active as is the fly-in. The old QAC newsletters have a ton of the details too. Just plan on weeks of reading lol.
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
There's tons of quickie pireps, the quickie groups are still very active as is the fly-in. The old QAC newsletters have a ton of the details too. Just plan on weeks of reading lol.
I’ve been reading and reading. Seems like after the Q200 debuted, it had incorporated the fixes that everyone had experienced problems without.

IO-200 engine
Speed brake
Toe brakes
Some sort of caliper arrangement
Reflux or
Balance aileron
LS1 wing

The commonality with all the Q200 owners is the “the engine is not stock, I had some work done to It” statement... I’m like who then is the IO-200 engine guru that turns this 100 hp (what, 80 hp continuous) into a 120 hp demon? Is 120 hp a good number for a IO-200?
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
O200 were once used in formula air races... Lots of performance mods are out there.

Stock is probably good unless you're way up high like me
 

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
O200 were once used in formula air races... Lots of performance mods are out there.

Stock is probably good unless you're way up high like me
Seems like every Q200 OWNER says the same thing. I put HC pistons in this and I had the heads polished.

In CA I need to be able to climb up over Mt San Antonio (10K)
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,473
Location
YMM
Wouldn't surprise me... Pretty sure the performance parts are cheaper :cool:

I did Calgary to salmon arm at 12k (over the Rockies following TCH). That was limit of range but westbound over the rockies... Coming back was quick and lots of fuel reserve lol
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,007
Location
Orange County, California
... In CA I need to be able to climb up over Mt San Antonio (10K)
Why is that?

Fly through the Cajon Pass if you're headed north, or Banning Pass if you're headed east. You don't need to be down in the weeds, no, but there's no reason to go "over the top" of one of the three highest peaks in the SoCal area when there are easier, lower, paths out of the San Gabriel Valley.
 
Last edited:

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
6,764
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Edit: He's correct, if he has to go northwest from Fontana he will be in fairly high country, and 10K is not unreasonable to represent a safety margin. My previous reply was inaccurate if anyone read it in the 27 seconds it was up :)

Edit 2: Going through Cajon Pass, in a lightly loaded airplane, at the wrong time of day, or in certain weather conditions, is not advisable IMHO. Going up and over would be a better choice some percentage of the time. The boundary between the LA basin's moist cool airmass and the warmer drier desert airmass creates very significant localized instability and turbulence. When it bulges out into the Mojave desert that boundary turbulence is called the "El Mirage Shear Line", and we crazy old sailplane drivers would ride that instability for hours on end. Dealing with it at low altitude in the Cajon Pass, if you're not a sailplane pilot, might be an unpleasant experience. Early morning before all of the air starts to get active, probably not a big deal.
 
Last edited:

Rik-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
348
Location
San Rafael, California
Why is that?

Fly through the Cajon Pass if you're headed north, or Banning Pass if you're headed east. You don't need to be down in the weeds, no, but there's no reason to go "over the top" of one of the three highest peaks in the SoCal area when there are easier, lower, paths out of the San Gabriel Valley.
Thanks.. Looking at the charts, that 8,500’. Going west and staying out of the bravo I can fly about the same and then cut up around Hawthorne and up to Santa Maria.

Or go right over the top and I’m Bakersfield.

I know southwest flies just east of the cajon pass as I can see the cars climbing it at night.
 
2
Group Builder
Top