Impressive what you can do with multi-disk antilock-equipped brakes, a willingness to waste a set of tires, the capability to direct a couple hundred thousand pounds of thrust out the front of the nacelles, leading edge slats, spoilers, and a highly experienced professional test pilot at the controls well versed in what's about to happen in a brand-new airplane on a clean, dry runway on a no-wind day...Originally Posted by steveinindy
I don't think I'd like to have to fly like that every day, though. Tires, brakes, and underwear start to add up...
You can do your own research, but a quick look at the Cozy website showed that it has a gross weight 1.78x my airplane, and a takeoff roll roughly 4x longer at that weight. So though canards are "compromised" in the direction of speed, low drag, and endurance, takeoff and landing roll seems to have ended up on the other side of that compromise.
Interesting to note from the Wikipedia entry on the Starship - "a traditionally located vertical tail would have transmitted propeller noise into the airframe. In its place, directional stability and control is provided by rudders mounted in the winglets at the tips of the wings." And given the few numbers thrown around on this thread - a 6- to 8-seat-sized airplane - the Starship had 1030 lbs non-fuel payload & 6 seats. Just to give you an idea of "how big" you need to go. There really isn't much "in between" size between a 4-seat Cozy or this twin engined Velocity and the Starship.
Though I did hear that since the Starship was the first all-composite non-military airframe that the FAA certified, it did get several thousand pounds of unnecessary "structural reinforcements" to meet what the FAA thought was necessary. Maybe now, with much more knowledge and experience, all that "structure" could be swapped out for payload. In which case, there really would be a lot of design space "in between" the Vtwin and the Starship (especially if it's not certified).
Reply With Quote