When you don't know what you're talking about, you really should keep your mouth shut (but DK will prevent that, I'm sure). I've asked before and had zero response from you - to what "unexplained loss of control crashes" are you referring? Point me to some, please, preferably NTSB reports, or even just a web description of a "unexplained" crash. VE, LE, COZY, Berkut, E-Racer, Velocity - don't care. Point me to the crashes to which you continue to refer.You mean like the Rutans which keep having unexplained loss of control crashes?
Funny, my ears were burning.You mean like the Rutans which keep having unexplained loss of control crashes?
The accident you reference occurred during the Kanab, UT fly-in for canards a few years back - I was there, but did not participate in the fly-out to Bryce Canyon that day.Looking at just Rutan Long-Ez, I've got 51 total accidents. None of those fell into my "Unknown Loss of Control" category. Only one of the accidents fell into the "Cause Undetermined" category:
Not unexpected. It seemed to require a fair amount of aileron deflection to maintain wings level, so it's probable that the left wing is at a slightly higher angle of incidence than the right wing (left aileron up when level). This is not unknown with canards - a fair percentage require shimming of a wing after the first few flights to get into trim, and then fairing in the strake to match. My COZY MKIV did, by about 0.4 degrees, and I've advised numerous others on how to fix an out of trim issue. Gurney flaps can work reasonably well outboard of the ailerons as well. The pitch oscillations will decrease as PM becomes more familiar with the plane.Just watched the latest vid. Pretty well established now that the plane flies reasonable straight and is controllable...
How many people and how much gas it's got on board is not germane - what's important is how close the plane is to MGW. Given the empty weight, with Peter (at, I'm guessing, about 160 lb) and 72 lb. of gas, he's at somewhere around 93 - 95% of MGW. That's AWFULLY high to be starting testing - there's no margin.and requires a 3,000' !!!! ground roll with 1 person and 12 gallons of gas on board. That might be a problem...
Citation needed. You know which incidents you are talking about: please cite verifiable N-numbers, dates and locations, NTSB reports, etc.Just off the top of my head there have been two different unexplained fatalities since this thread began. One with a loss of control crash in the pattern, and another where an experienced canard pilot crashed taking an aircraft home after a purchase. And one of the pilots who flew the same model confirmed that controls were very touchy in the vertical compared to other canards.
You will know if you’ve found the first case because it was supposed to be an airbrake test and Burt Rutan himself was brought in to investigate but was unable to determine the cause.
The MAIN wing area is somewhere around 85 sq-ft, but the total wing area (with canard and strakes) is generally considered to be about 101 sq-ft. See:I was looking at the Cozy MKIV on wiki. Was about 2000 gross weight and 180hp and 83 sq.ft. wing area.
So a future Raptor could be gross weight 4000 and 360hp and 166 sq.ft for a crude comparison?
So your gross wing loading is 20.2 pounds per sq. ft.If you want to scale power to weight and wing loading, then yeah - your #'s are in the right ballpark, with the correction for total wing area.