Shal we join both threads ?Weighing in late on a subject near and dear to my heart, please take a look at this earlier thread Swept-forward, shoulder-wing configuration and especially the article on Bjorn Andreasson's original simple homebuilt BA-7 attached to this post. The shoulder-wing blend of high-wing ground clearance/downward visibility and low-wing upward visibility is very appealing. A Volksplane-simple wood-and-fabric design or a Skyranger-style bolted-tube-and-dacron design along these lines could, I think, have broad appeal.
The Glasair Aviation GlaStar was, with modifications, TCed as the Symphony.To my knowledge, the only other design gone from homebuild to certified aircraft, was pazmany pl-2.
Found some better photos
Sadly, most single-engined pushers suffer balance problems that can only be solved by installing the prop hub well forward of the trailing edge, or installing seats way farther forward than is structurally sound. Look at the original Republic Seabee. It had a brilliant airframe, but the weak (barely 200 horsepower) Franklin engine needed an 18-ish inch drive shaft to balance. Only a few Seabees have been retrofitted with more powerful engines because of balance hassles. The best up-engine program involves installing a 300 hp, automotive V-8 engine stolen from a Corvette car with a 20-ish inch extension shaft.You know, you can solve the problem by using a twin boom pusher midwing configuration . The spar can then be just behind the seat for a side-by-side or single, or between the seats for a tandem. Adjust engine position and/or seats to get the CG in the right place.
You were right the first time. The Eagle X was conceived by an Australian company as an inexpensive two-seat airplane for private use and flight training. Another "modern Cub" concept. The particular "bright idea" of this one was that the wing and canard were supposed to be pultruded shapes, including, I believe, the spar caps and webs. There would be one pultrusion die, and you'd simply cut off a shorter piece for a canard panel, and a longer piece for a wing panel. You'll notice that the flap (on the canard and wing) and the aileron are about the same chord, so they're another "cut to length" piece.I din't realise it was a Rutan design, i thought it was Australian.
You put Australia and cheap into the same sentence, bahahaha!Australian company as an inexpensive
Better photos of what please? What brand, model is it?Found some better photos :
Thanks I was going to re-post that. Ingress and egress is simple. My 80 year old mother managed fine as did Zig at 92. Pat Taylor Son of REX is the model demonstrating is 72 and owns the design rights.
Sadly, but nope. This one was taken from webarchive itself. Just an sad story, when an good idea have to be forgotten. And this one still lack two members, as per x ray photo of airplane. As i can see. But it is only simple truss..Better photos of what please? What brand, model is it?
That's the designer/builder, not the design per say. Look up wing twist, and wing cuffs. Some designs even use different wing profiles from root to tip. Plenty of straight wing planes stall gently.un-swept do have not very nice - not gentle, and may stall at all span at once .
I wasn't asking for photos, I was asking what brand or who built it please?Sadly, but nope.