There are now Velocity XLs with 375hp engines and one was built with a jet-prop engine. The XL is their flagship...the twin was meant to be a safer plane to fly at night and uses the same 4-seat airframe (with an added tail section) but it is slower and less fuel efficient than the XL. Velocity has a 3-year back-order queue attesting to the popularity of the aircraft.
When Rutan was at Beech, developing the Starship, they made a test unit that had the full size & full power turboprops, but it was otherwise a 7/8 scale model. It didn't have flaps and it didn't have the silly hydraulic yaw damper, and it's weight was more like half what a finished production Starship was. Everybody who ever flew it, loved it. It was fast, it handled beautifully, it wouldn't stall, it was more than capable of doing beginner level aerobatics. It could fly safely at 60 knots and with full back-stick as low as about 55, and it would touch 300 at altitude. It was somewhat under-weight & over-powered but it was the most magnificent aeroplane to fly. It had room for passenger seats in the cabin but I'm not sure they ever installed any. The name 'Starship One' was later coined for production versions but inside the shop. 'Starship One' meant that 7/8s model. That was a magnificent aeroplane. It just worked better in every way than it should have.
I remember as a Aircraft Mechanic working at Addison Airport(north of Dallas) a Airshow going on and Starship One (the 7/8 Proto) on Final approach, gliding in, and a small slow ac, like a 152 taking off on the same runway very slow, then the Starship Punched the throttles and spinning away( I'm sure just part of the show) and came around again and landed. it made a Huge impression on that once Young Aircraft Mechanic, Still Fascinated with Canards, I just retired after 37 + years at American Airlines, I remember this like it happened yesterday, but it was in the mid 80's !
I liked that you saved mention of the original Wright Flyer until last. Of course, I also liked that the VariEze was first. I have one now, my 2nd VariEze. Incredible efficiency and visibility.
Respect. I see you’re wearing a starship shirt. They build them here in Wichita, Kansas, and I actually worked in the plant they built them at, although it was years later. Beechcraft and Raytheon was my first journey into aviation manufacturing. I later became a excellent fabricator and 2nd level manager at Boeing and then Spirit Aerosystems. Finished my aircraft voyage at GE aviation, and then is subsequent small aircraft company. It’s nice being reminded of the awesome aviation history that I grew up around and didn’t even realize call unique it was. Thank you very much.
I wish they still sold the kits today. ( Detail plans + materials costed under $10,000). I just saw an ad for an unopened box with everything inside except motor in England for cheap. Some guy bought it but died before building it. Shipping would be expensive though🤑
The beechcraft starship is the one I had in mind. Got to sit in the cockpit of one when i was like 13 at beechcraft where my uncle worked. That velocity twin sure reminded me of it.
There are over 35 flying Defiants with some still being built. It is the King of Canards. I know because I built one and ran the newsletter for 15 years.
I do like the dragonfly, but I think it’s a more tame version of the quickie. I really don’t know too much about it. I think it’s landing gear is a better way to do it though
@@jimmybalsam3696 Completly wrong. The Q1 was inspiration for the Q2 built by Larue in Canada. The Dragonfly was also inspired by the Q1 but is not a copy of the Q1 or Q2. Different wing loading and power loading, construction and assembly details. Like saying Piper Cub and a Stinson are copies.
In 1986, when they flew it unrefueled, nonstop, around the world, I was in California, but, I was on the Coast that day, South if San Jose`, in Capitola, California, when they Landed in Mojave! I bought a Couple Newspapers with the Story! Still have them!
1:08 a Varieze on s grass runway... nice ! Burt Rutan 'sorta' launched an experimental homebuilt twin mini-starship at Oshkosh last month. I so hope the idea takes off !
I think the dragonfly came afterwards. It had longer wings with less anhedral on the forward wing. I believe it was powered by smaller engines such as the revmaster and VW, as well as HAPI. Slower than Q2
Well tandem wings are very dangerous in stall. Stall recovery with such large lifting wing in front is almost impossible. Maybe this is why almost nobody use such design.
5:30 and 5:42 are of my Father, tail number N314JF, taking off and landing at E98... I need to get around to posting some of the videos I have of his Subaru powered Q2...
The only canard I have ever flown was the Dragon Fly. It did not pitch nose upon take off like a normal plane. It stayed flat and felt more like riding an elevator.
Same here. I was at Oshkosh when I was first shown, and I liked it much better than the Q2. Larger and roomier. In the end my concerns about rain performance scuttled my build plans for similar designs, along with the issues of the wide stance gear and running off smaller width runways. Great design, though.
There is one prototype left in existance. It can be seen at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. www.airzoo.org/wwii?xmod-623-pp-318630-item=6315
Please do not forget to Artem Mikoyan who designed and developed this concept in 1937. First flight was in 1945 under name of Utka oficially knowed as MIG-8 Wikipedia: "The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka (Russian: Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-8 «Утка», "duck") was a Soviet experimental aircraft. Built of wood, the aircraft was designed and built in 1945 to test the novel canard configuration. It also used a tricycle undercarriage, the first used by the OKB. It was modified to test a variety of vertical stabilizer and wingtip configurations and was later used as a liaison aircraft for many years by the design bureau."
@@FloridaFlying I had thought that propeller driven canards could not have flaps, but as it turns out, the Starship had them. It may not be an issue because there are speed brake kits available now. Cheers.
I am so glad you brought up the Mig-8: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mig-8&&view=detail&mid=C07AF04A5F6DBACA19C4C07AF04A5F6DBACA19C4&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmig-8%26FORM%3DHDRSC3 I always thought it's primary purpose was the to assess the low speed handling qualities of the first generation Soviet swept wing supersonic fighters. But, I am just guessing - - - - Don't forget the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender and the Kyushu Shinden J7W1: XP-55: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=XP-55&&view=detail&mid=1C299FBD1D0751B18D2E1C299FBD1D0751B18D2E&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DXP-55%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBVDMH%26sp%3D-1%26pq%3Dxp-55%26sc%3D8-5%26sk%3D%26cvid%3D96451F1EE8774C64B237B67F0BD4EE2A Shinden: www.bing.com/videos/search?q=shinden+canard&&view=detail&mid=E9E1E3904572E0DEB191E9E1E3904572E0DEB191&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dshinden%2520canard%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBVDMH%26sp%3D-1%26pq%3Dshinden%2520canard%26sc%3D1-14%26sk%3D%26cvid%3D1F71E321D92C4130A3A5B9ECE31D2AE0 Joe T.
My favorite is my Cozy IV, 200 mph cruise @ 30 mpg, four seats and 1500 ml range with reserve. I owned a LongEZ before. Where I are you in Florida, I am in North FL.
They don’t stall like a normal airplane in that they don’t stall... the canard (smol wing) will always stall before the main wing, causing the nose to drop and reduce the angle of attack, so it’s pretty hard to stall one of these
They do stall under certain conditions, but Wasabi refers to it as a 'deep stall', which is when both canard and wing loose their lift, and with it, roll and yaw authority, until air speed is regained. The canard pilot will need plenty of altitude to recover, so certain low speed, high bank angle maneuvers should be avoided at low altitudes. Seems reasonable, right?
Any plane can stall if you build up enough speed to pitch it straight up (assuming it doesn’t have enough power to hang from the prop). Canards really help in the realm of stalls that occur in situations such as base to final.
@@bartofilms I think you mean to say "Canards don't stall if designed correctly.' The canard must stall before the main wing. If both stall at the same AoA, or if the main wing stalls before the canard, you are out of luck.
0:24 this is not fundamentally true, that Canards inherently stall a certain way, or cant stall. Canards are more readily "tuned" to stall a certain way (canard wing first) by setting its incidence higher than the main wing, which causes it to stall early, lowering the nose, preventing the aft wing from stalling. But this does not always happen. The XP-55 NACA tests showed this airplane to be wretched. It would stall the rear wing first almost every time, and it was eventually unrecoverable. The photo of the prototype pancaked flat is proof. As the Quickie Q2 clubs measurements showed, after checking over 20+ customer built aircraft, many had their incidences set as much as +/-3 degrees from ideal. Both on the canard and main wing, which is a big error that was repeated by many builders. So those planes may not stall or land properly, and in fact many don't. Even if you do set the wing and canard incidence correctly, having it set higher for the canard still leads to deep stall if stalled inverted in a negative-G "outside" stall. Stalling the rear-wing on a LongEZ or even Velocity and Berkut has led to deep stalls that were completely unrecoverable. To my knowledge, only Dick Rutan has managed to get out of one after plunging aproximately 10,000 feet and recovering just above the desert floor. Interestingly enough, there has been about a dozen cases of Canards deep stalled and crashed, but only a couple of fatalities. It appears to be survivable to ride the deep stall into the ground, with a fatality rate (10%) the same or better than the average General Aviation crash record shows. Although the chance of serious injury is practically 100%. If you don't bail, you probably wont die, but you may be spending many weeks in the ICU at $40k/day, a few million$ in total medical bills. So BAIL or use an airframe parachute.
Great job !!! I'm looking for two issues of an amateur airplane builder magasine around the year 1985 (?) where a gentleman built a twin seat Quickie Q2 to fly from central USA to visit his sons on the West Coast... If anybody remember where those articles were published, please let me know. Muchas gracias 😀😀😀
I've always wanted to build a Velocity XL RG. 4 people, 1000+ mile range at around 200kt. Probably still half the price of a Cessna new. I'll probably never be able to afford one but I'd at least like to fly one before I die.
@@es330td Good to hear. I have a Velocity XL5 being built right now. I am going with the Continental TSIO 550-C turbo and a four-blade German made MT-prop MTV-14-B. I am told we may get 250kt cruise in this setup.
So, clear up something if you would please. Is the canard a lift producing structure, or merely a horizontal stabilizer mounted forward? I recall reading, some years ago that the aircraft under discussion in the article shared lift production with the main wing. How would this effect control? I guess I would like to see the video on the physics, issues, and advantages too.
@@chuckaddison5134 The Quickie, the Q2, (and the Dragonfly, which wasn't shown), and some others are essentially "biplanes", because they produce a significant amount of lift (the canard wing of a Q2, for example, accounts for 40% of the lift). In those aircraft where the canard is small, it functions as the plane's elevator, solely (or, primarily).
@@chuckaddison5134 In a conventional plane, the horizontal stabilizer produces negative lift. In a canard, the stabilizer produces positive lift. This gives the same stabilizing effect, but improves efficiency and allows for a smaller main wing. The canard stalls before the main wing, which drops the nose; the main wing therefore cannot stall.
@Alfons Falkhayn Well yeah, if that's what you're going to be doing often it makes sense to use a rugged design. However, it is old and seeing something new is refreshing, and If you intend to only land on asphalt, I wouldn't mind using it
Imagine an engine-out situation where you lad off airport. The gear grabs and the plane trows you over onto the canopy. Try getting out with the plane ontop of you. NO THANKS!
@@gormauslander LOL, "civilization" is removing airports at an alarming rate due to real estate prices. There are less airports every week. Landing on a road means power lines, traffic signs, bridges, cars, trucks, busses, etc. Basically YOU ARE SCREWED if you land off-airport in a Q or Q2.
@@arthurfoyt6727 any light plane with small wheels could suffer snagging if you try to land it in a marsh. What makes this aircraft uniquely dangerous?
The Velocity V-twin scaled up to 8-12 seats and a walkable cabin in turboprop or turbofan form would be an awesome sexy option for wealthy execs and other high rollers.
That's what the relief tube is for ;). I understand where you are coming from though, we increased the capacity of the fuel tanks but never were able to sit in that confined position long enough to burn it all.
The Velocity is on my bucketlist...looks good and it looks like a good cross country aircraft!!! I've seem some in cockpit videos and it looks like ablast to Fly!!! 🐦🐦🐦
Both Velocities are cross-country flyers. They have range and power and both versions can be equipped with turbo'd engines for higher flying. They are also equipped with built-in oxygen systems. They do lack de-icing though.
Me too. But at 72 I'm not building one and they are justifiably mighty spendy once built. I heard an F-15 pilot say his Velocity flew much like his F-15 feel wise.
You mentioned the falcon was part 103 no license required, but for those that won’t pass the medical,( in my case because of a dui , years ago ) I wish you could point out which are sport pilot capable, I’d believe because of the cruise speed most would not, but I do love Routan’s canard design, elegance, efficiency, performance, I surprised more builders dident follow the platform, I digress, are any of the fore mentioned sport pilot capable?
You almost could have called this "planes by Burt Rutan". You forgot his solitaire glider and the Ares jet fighter though and Rutan's Voyager (first nonstop circumnavigator)? And what about the Saab Viggen?
Not to forget the Eagle Aircraft 150 ... an Australian designed two-seat single-engine (125hp) composite aircraft. It has three lifting surfaces : forward wing (foreplane), main wing (mainplane) and horizontal stabilizer (tailplane). Originally designed and built by Eagle Aircraft Pty Ltd, and now manufactured in Malaysia. Good pilot visibility.
Extremely, as the flow over the wing is assymetric and thus impinges the propellers flow at different angles above and below the wing creating much more noise that similar-sized conventional twins. Same was true for the Starship, also a lovely-looking plane.
I've been listening to your comments requesting more footage of engine rooms and crew quarters, so in tomorrow's video of the astonishing Pershing 80 "Lounor" I take a far more thorough look at the yacht. I'm also especially pleased with some of the running shots, they really give an impression of the speed and handling of the yacht! I plan to publish it tomorrow at 10:00 CET.
You got one of the "honorable mentions" at 10:37 somewhat wrong, and there is actually quite a story behind this: What was at some point offered as the "Bateleur" is actually a design by the german engineer Richter who called it the "Delta Dart". It was developed to fit into the german ultralight category and it was also certified in that category (The design is still registered today). Unfortunately Richter crashed during a demonstration flight with a potential buyer and died. Now here's where the Bateleur story begins: A german-austrian wannabe-entrepreneur named Von Schoenebeck had attempted to market the original plane, but once Richter was out of the picture he took some plans and tools, boarded a plane to South Africa and within a short period of time he suddenly came up with a brand new plane called "Bateleur" - which looked suspiciously similar to the "Delta Dart". Alas, he had no commercial success. One empty hull of a bateleur was mounted outside an airfield, the red-and-silver one in your videoclip crashed and one still remains to be found.
I have a v8 auto engine I'm considering doing a aircraft conversion. The parts list so far puts it at about 700 hp. Wonder if one of these planes could be modified for that.
There's a gentleman in Florida, I believe, who has built one with a Chevy LS motor. The plane is very fast and flies great he says. As for what HP level it is tuned to l don't know. There is a video of it on RUclips.
Came here to see if the Raptor got a mention. Whilst the prototype hasn’t flown yet, as far as I know, it one of the few (if not only) completely new canard designs being developed. A lot of canards are derivates of Rutan’s designs, but the Raptor is original. If the Raptor’s design goals are met, it is going to be an amazing machine!
It'd be interesting to see the front rudder design again, but with downward/bidirectional winglet stabs on the main surface... this way you could conceivably put both the front and rear gear inside flight surfaces on already rigid members, and have tricycle gear. :+ )
Its been my life dream have follow the space cowboy since the discovery or invention & continued development Burth Rutan, been to Lancaster Ca to see more of the grand accomplishment that it's been minimized as to the further development of the voyager into outer space, it's been a giant step o s in the canard design
Well, having flown a Long EZ i can tell you that you can only see the very tips of the canard, basically all you can see of the plane is the instrument panel and your legs if you look down. The visibility is like sitting on the tip of an arrow, you can see up, down and all around, nothing else comes close.
Which one is your favorite?? I can’t pick one, but I like the Long EZ, quickie q2, and Velocity
Long EZ....bar none....
My favorite is the saab ajs 37 viggen delta canard (you never said it had propeller powered or have more than one airworthy unit)
I like the Berkut 540.
Q1, but I'm biased.
@@alfepalfe the inspiration for the Rutan VariViggen!
There are now Velocity XLs with 375hp engines and one was built with a jet-prop engine. The XL is their flagship...the twin was meant to be a safer plane to fly at night and uses the same 4-seat airframe (with an added tail section) but it is slower and less fuel efficient than the XL. Velocity has a 3-year back-order queue attesting to the popularity of the aircraft.
Got to see a Starship fly at Sun 'N Fun back in '93. Beautiful.
It's unfortunate that most of those got broken up by Beech instead of sold.
When Rutan was at Beech, developing the Starship, they made a test unit that had the full size & full power turboprops, but it was otherwise a 7/8 scale model. It didn't have flaps and it didn't have the silly hydraulic yaw damper, and it's weight was more like half what a finished production Starship was.
Everybody who ever flew it, loved it. It was fast, it handled beautifully, it wouldn't stall, it was more than capable of doing beginner level aerobatics. It could fly safely at 60 knots and with full back-stick as low as about 55, and it would touch 300 at altitude. It was somewhat under-weight & over-powered but it was the most magnificent aeroplane to fly. It had room for passenger seats in the cabin but I'm not sure they ever installed any.
The name 'Starship One' was later coined for production versions but inside the shop. 'Starship One' meant that 7/8s model.
That was a magnificent aeroplane. It just worked better in every way than it should have.
I'm told the people who fly the full production model also love them, but I can see how this lighter model would have been awesome to have
I remember as a Aircraft Mechanic working at Addison Airport(north of Dallas) a Airshow going on and Starship One (the 7/8 Proto) on Final approach, gliding in, and a small slow ac, like a 152 taking off on the same runway very slow, then the Starship Punched the throttles and spinning away( I'm sure just part of the show) and came around again and landed. it made a Huge impression on that once Young Aircraft Mechanic, Still Fascinated with Canards, I just retired after 37 + years at American Airlines, I remember this like it happened yesterday, but it was in the mid 80's !
I liked that you saved mention of the original Wright Flyer until last. Of course, I also liked that the VariEze was first. I have one now, my 2nd VariEze. Incredible efficiency and visibility.
That is great, how much HP does yours have? Electric or hand prop? I think one day I’d have a long ez or varieze for traveling. Such cool planes.
@@FloridaFlying 100 hp, elec. start. Pretty much a standard Cont. O-200 as in a C-150.
QUICKY has a nice aerodynamic design with its ground effects efficiency.
Respect. I see you’re wearing a starship shirt. They build them here in Wichita, Kansas, and I actually worked in the plant they built them at, although it was years later. Beechcraft and Raytheon was my first journey into aviation manufacturing. I later became a excellent fabricator and 2nd level manager at Boeing and then Spirit Aerosystems. Finished my aircraft voyage at GE aviation, and then is subsequent small aircraft company. It’s nice being reminded of the awesome aviation history that I grew up around and didn’t even realize call unique it was. Thank you very much.
man i love rutans planes, i wish more people could think out of the box like him
I wish they still sold the kits today. ( Detail plans + materials costed under $10,000). I just saw an ad for an unopened box with everything inside except motor in England for cheap. Some guy bought it but died before building it. Shipping would be expensive though🤑
I love these types of videos
I just love how rare my airplane is and that it didn’t even make the honorable mention list. 😁 Viking Dragonfly MK-1.
I've loved that plane for decades
The quickie seems like a good candidate for electric flight with it's low power requirement.
Sounds like it needs a different name lol
@@IdiotWithEducation he could have called it a truck stop special.
@@michaellowe3665 lol
@@michaellowe3665 lol
Indeed.
The beechcraft starship is the one I had in mind. Got to sit in the cockpit of one when i was like 13 at beechcraft where my uncle worked. That velocity twin sure reminded me of it.
I love that you have examples of the aircraft you are discussing shot doing low passes.
Wright flyer is original canard and the most interesting thing to me is one engine and two pusher propellers
There are over 35 flying Defiants with some still being built. It is the King of Canards. I know because I built one and ran the newsletter for 15 years.
What.
Not even a mention of a very good plane called the Dragonfly? I loved mine. Can not believe you completely left it out.
I do like the dragonfly, but I think it’s a more tame version of the quickie. I really don’t know too much about it. I think it’s landing gear is a better way to do it though
@@FloridaFlying Thanks for the reply. The one thing I like about the dragonfly is that it has side by side seating.
@@jimmybalsam3696 Completly wrong. The Q1 was inspiration for the Q2 built by Larue in Canada. The Dragonfly was also inspired by the Q1 but is not a copy of the Q1 or Q2. Different wing loading and power loading, construction and assembly details. Like saying Piper Cub and a Stinson are copies.
The Rutan brothers were a hell of a team !
The voyager deserves an episode !
Saludos desde Colombia 🇨🇴
top post !!!!!!
In 1986, when they flew it unrefueled, nonstop, around the world, I was in California, but, I was on the Coast that day, South if San Jose`, in Capitola, California, when they Landed in Mojave!
I bought a Couple Newspapers with the Story! Still have them!
1:08 a Varieze on s grass runway... nice ! Burt Rutan 'sorta' launched an experimental homebuilt twin mini-starship at Oshkosh last month. I so hope the idea takes off !
Here in Argentina The Falcon ultralight is very famous!
I have a Quickie Q1 mostly built that I'm finishing, but I would love to get my hands on a Velocity. Can't wait to get it in the air!
Yep, also the Dragonfly, the original Quickie prototype I think I recall.
I think the dragonfly came afterwards. It had longer wings with less anhedral on the forward wing.
I believe it was powered by smaller engines such as the revmaster and VW, as well as HAPI. Slower than Q2
Another great video.
TOP 10 EXPERIMENTAL Canard AIRPLANES. Thanks!
Burt Rutan designed and produced some remarkable aircraft including the Beechcraft Starship and space craft.
He was a genius who had his invention copied over and over with not a penny in compensation.
@@jimreilly6933 Definitely one of the finest aerospace engineers I have ever seen!
@@jimreilly6933 Definitely one of the finest aerospace engineers I have ever seen!
My brother and his wife built a Long EZ, mid '80s, real crowd pleaser, donated to Southern Museum of Flight, just finished a Van's RV-14
Your brother built the Van's?!
35/5000
Missing from the list was the Viking Dragonfly, Cozy, etc.
@@jimmybalsam3696
You must be paid to say they were copies. Me and others that did research are not impressed by you or your bs.
@@joeywhite7948 exactly, I agree with you.
OMG The Quickie is the deal! With the low HP and all you get! Just waiting for all the electric planes!
Electric propulsion would probably revive the model as the Quickie is infamous for its engine-out accidents.
great video!
4:00 I love tandem wing designs like the Rutan Quickie. Would love to hear more about them.
Well tandem wings are very dangerous in stall. Stall recovery with such large lifting wing in front is almost impossible. Maybe this is why almost nobody use such design.
5:30 and 5:42 are of my Father, tail number N314JF, taking off and landing at E98... I need to get around to posting some of the videos I have of his Subaru powered Q2...
The only canard I have ever flown was the Dragon Fly. It did not pitch nose upon take off like a normal plane. It stayed flat and felt more like riding an elevator.
Same here. I was at Oshkosh when I was first shown, and I liked it much better than the Q2. Larger and roomier.
In the end my concerns about rain performance scuttled my build plans for similar designs, along with the issues of the wide stance gear and running off smaller width runways. Great design, though.
The Red 6 is amazing
Вася, новый ГЕРАНЬ!
The xp-55 was an experimental canard aircraft, developed during ww2
There is one prototype left in existance. It can be seen at the Kalamazoo Air Zoo, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. www.airzoo.org/wwii?xmod-623-pp-318630-item=6315
These remind me of the Horton Brothers 229 flying wing. My favorite plane.
Velocity, yeah!🤘
Though the true love is the Starship for sure! It's the THE.
Please do not forget to Artem Mikoyan who designed and developed this concept in 1937. First flight was in 1945 under name of Utka oficially knowed as MIG-8 Wikipedia: "The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka (Russian: Микоян и Гуревич МиГ-8 «Утка», "duck") was a Soviet experimental aircraft. Built of wood, the aircraft was designed and built in 1945 to test the novel canard configuration. It also used a tricycle undercarriage, the first used by the OKB. It was modified to test a variety of vertical stabilizer and wingtip configurations and was later used as a liaison aircraft for many years by the design bureau."
Thank you for sharing, I plan on doing a video about the aerodynamics of canards in the future and I will definitely include that information
@@FloridaFlying I had thought that propeller driven canards could not have flaps, but as it turns out, the Starship had them. It may not be an issue because there are speed brake kits available now. Cheers.
Velocity is working on using flaps. Might want to check that out.
I am so glad you brought up the Mig-8:
www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mig-8&&view=detail&mid=C07AF04A5F6DBACA19C4C07AF04A5F6DBACA19C4&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmig-8%26FORM%3DHDRSC3
I always thought it's primary purpose was the to assess the low speed handling qualities of the first generation Soviet swept wing supersonic fighters. But, I am just guessing - - - -
Don't forget the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender and the Kyushu Shinden J7W1:
XP-55:
www.bing.com/videos/search?q=XP-55&&view=detail&mid=1C299FBD1D0751B18D2E1C299FBD1D0751B18D2E&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DXP-55%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBVDMH%26sp%3D-1%26pq%3Dxp-55%26sc%3D8-5%26sk%3D%26cvid%3D96451F1EE8774C64B237B67F0BD4EE2A
Shinden:
www.bing.com/videos/search?q=shinden+canard&&view=detail&mid=E9E1E3904572E0DEB191E9E1E3904572E0DEB191&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dshinden%2520canard%26qs%3Dn%26form%3DQBVDMH%26sp%3D-1%26pq%3Dshinden%2520canard%26sc%3D1-14%26sk%3D%26cvid%3D1F71E321D92C4130A3A5B9ECE31D2AE0
Joe T.
BTW, 'Shinden' means "Magnificent Lightning."
My favorite is my Cozy IV, 200 mph cruise @ 30 mpg, four seats and 1500 ml range with reserve. I owned a LongEZ before. Where I are you in Florida, I am in North FL.
Sir, very good presentation. Thank you!
They don’t stall like a normal airplane in that they don’t stall... the canard (smol wing) will always stall before the main wing, causing the nose to drop and reduce the angle of attack, so it’s pretty hard to stall one of these
They do stall under certain conditions, but Wasabi refers to it as a 'deep stall', which is when both canard and wing loose their lift, and with it, roll and yaw authority, until air speed is regained. The canard pilot will need plenty of altitude to recover, so certain low speed, high bank angle maneuvers should be avoided at low altitudes. Seems reasonable, right?
Any plane can stall if you build up enough speed to pitch it straight up (assuming it doesn’t have enough power to hang from the prop). Canards really help in the realm of stalls that occur in situations such as base to final.
@@bartofilms I think you mean to say "Canards don't stall if designed correctly.' The canard must stall before the main wing. If both stall at the same AoA, or if the main wing stalls before the canard, you are out of luck.
0:24 this is not fundamentally true, that Canards inherently stall a certain way, or cant stall.
Canards are more readily "tuned" to stall a certain way (canard wing first) by setting its incidence higher than the main wing, which causes it to stall early, lowering the nose, preventing the aft wing from stalling. But this does not always happen.
The XP-55 NACA tests showed this airplane to be wretched. It would stall the rear wing first almost every time, and it was eventually unrecoverable. The photo of the prototype pancaked flat is proof.
As the Quickie Q2 clubs measurements showed, after checking over 20+ customer built aircraft, many had their incidences set as much as +/-3 degrees from ideal. Both on the canard and main wing, which is a big error that was repeated by many builders. So those planes may not stall or land properly, and in fact many don't.
Even if you do set the wing and canard incidence correctly, having it set higher for the canard still leads to deep stall if stalled inverted in a negative-G "outside" stall.
Stalling the rear-wing on a LongEZ or even Velocity and Berkut has led to deep stalls that were completely unrecoverable. To my knowledge, only Dick Rutan has managed to get out of one after plunging aproximately 10,000 feet and recovering just above the desert floor. Interestingly enough, there has been about a dozen cases of Canards deep stalled and crashed, but only a couple of fatalities. It appears to be survivable to ride the deep stall into the ground, with a fatality rate (10%) the same or better than the average General Aviation crash record shows. Although the chance of serious injury is practically 100%. If you don't bail, you probably wont die, but you may be spending many weeks in the ICU at $40k/day, a few million$ in total medical bills. So BAIL or use an airframe parachute.
LE...10 Hours that’s impressive!
Great job !!! I'm looking for two issues of an amateur airplane builder magasine around the year 1985 (?) where a gentleman built a twin seat Quickie Q2 to fly from central USA to visit his sons on the West Coast... If anybody remember where those articles were published, please let me know. Muchas gracias 😀😀😀
I've always wanted to build a Velocity XL RG. 4 people, 1000+ mile range at around 200kt. Probably still half the price of a Cessna new. I'll probably never be able to afford one but I'd at least like to fly one before I die.
Go to Sebastian, FL where Velocity is located. They offer flights for a nominal fee.
I knew someone with an RG, N52BZ. It was an amazing plane.
@@es330td Good to hear. I have a Velocity XL5 being built right now. I am going with the Continental TSIO 550-C turbo and a four-blade German made MT-prop MTV-14-B. I am told we may get 250kt cruise in this setup.
You can still buy Cozy Mark IV kits from Aircraft Spruce, that should have made the list for sure.
Would be great to have some explanations about the flight physics and the specific advantages and disadvantages.
I think I’m going to do a whole video on that in the future
@@FloridaFlying waiting!!
So, clear up something if you would please. Is the canard a lift producing structure, or merely a horizontal stabilizer mounted forward? I recall reading, some years ago that the aircraft under discussion in the article shared lift production with the main wing. How would this effect control? I guess I would like to see the video on the physics, issues, and advantages too.
@@chuckaddison5134
The Quickie, the Q2, (and the Dragonfly, which wasn't shown), and some others are essentially "biplanes", because they produce a significant amount of lift
(the canard wing of a Q2, for example, accounts for 40% of the lift).
In those aircraft where the canard is small, it functions as the plane's elevator, solely (or, primarily).
@@chuckaddison5134 In a conventional plane, the horizontal stabilizer produces negative lift. In a canard, the stabilizer produces positive lift. This gives the same stabilizing effect, but improves efficiency and allows for a smaller main wing. The canard stalls before the main wing, which drops the nose; the main wing therefore cannot stall.
Best freebie ever for your brothers mate.🛬
Great job!!
Wow, I'm 60 this year
Why did I not know most of these even existed.....
I don't know Larry...but with a name like your.s..I'll let you slide this time!!!!!....🐦
@Larry
...Because you were only a 14-year-old kid, in 1975!
When I saw the way the fore landing gear was mounted on the quickie, I honestly loved it instantly. I'd love to see it used more often
@Alfons Falkhayn Well yeah, if that's what you're going to be doing often it makes sense to use a rugged design. However, it is old and seeing something new is refreshing, and If you intend to only land on asphalt, I wouldn't mind using it
Imagine an engine-out situation where you lad off airport. The gear grabs and the plane trows you over onto the canopy. Try getting out with the plane ontop of you. NO THANKS!
@@arthurfoyt6727 why would you be flying a light plane like this so far from civilization that you can't find a road to land on
@@gormauslander LOL, "civilization" is removing airports at an alarming rate due to real estate prices. There are less airports every week. Landing on a road means power lines, traffic signs, bridges, cars, trucks, busses, etc. Basically YOU ARE SCREWED if you land off-airport in a Q or Q2.
@@arthurfoyt6727 any light plane with small wheels could suffer snagging if you try to land it in a marsh. What makes this aircraft uniquely dangerous?
LOVE THESE AIRPLANES LOVE ALL AIRPLANES
Great video! The Berkut is built at my local airport! They use it for crazy training from a company called Red 6.
I just want a varieze that’s nice and simple
GREAT! Video1
I like Rutan's boomerang. But he only built one as his personal aircraft. Twin engine, assymmetical layout
The Velocity V-twin scaled up to 8-12 seats and a walkable cabin in turboprop or turbofan form would be an awesome sexy option for wealthy execs and other high rollers.
Velocity is working on a 6-seater version of the twin...no larger though.
Very nice
Hands down, the Wright Flyer!
(The first canard ever!)
Waiting for the new Velocity V-twin 6 passenger!
Saw a Defiant in Boca ration fl . Awe inspiring
アメリカ横断ウルトラクイズの優勝賞品になった事もある機体ですよね！懐かしい。
Always loved the velocity. But these planes are a thing of the past. I don’t know why.
What I found limits the range of a Longez was not the fuel load but the size of your bladder!😁
That's what the relief tube is for ;). I understand where you are coming from though, we increased the capacity of the fuel tanks but never were able to sit in that confined position long enough to burn it all.
Shouldn't you be flying a BEARKUT Hugo?😂
Velocity twin is impressive and currently produced. Very interesting insta btw.
Спасибо за материал!!! "Утку" давно полюбил!!! Но время пролетело, одна мечта осталась. Пришлось швертбот создать.
The Velocity is on my bucketlist...looks good and it looks like a good cross country aircraft!!! I've seem some in cockpit videos and it looks like ablast to Fly!!! 🐦🐦🐦
Both Velocities are cross-country flyers. They have range and power and both versions can be equipped with turbo'd engines for higher flying. They are also equipped with built-in oxygen systems. They do lack de-icing though.
Me too. But at 72 I'm not building one and they are justifiably mighty spendy once built. I heard an F-15 pilot say his Velocity flew much like his F-15 feel wise.
400 hours in a Cozy. Fun but dangerous airplane
You mentioned the falcon was part 103 no license required, but for those that won’t pass the medical,( in my case because of a dui , years ago ) I wish you could point out which are sport pilot capable, I’d believe because of the cruise speed most would not, but I do love Routan’s canard design, elegance, efficiency, performance, I surprised more builders dident follow the platform, I digress, are any of the fore mentioned sport pilot capable?
Nice my dad has that canard plane its a quicke, just not sure wich model
4:15 that's neat, I wonder what the engine costs though
4:23 oh... HOLY HECK
Awesome video! Would love to take you for a ride sometime in Sebastian!
Thank you! I’m going to take you up on that offer, I’ve always loved the velocity models!
Best looking canard plane imo: Saab Gripen
You should mention the 14 Bis. The firts true canard airplane to fly.
Had a neighbor that built a q2. Was the first plane I ever flew in. Now 20 years later I’m a cfi
That is a wild first plane to fly in!
This guy Canard had I serious vision
I had a Canardly dog for a while.
Every time someone asked what it was i said that is a full blooded canardly.
I canardly tell what it is.
You almost could have called this "planes by Burt Rutan". You forgot his solitaire glider and the Ares jet fighter though and Rutan's Voyager (first nonstop circumnavigator)? And what about the Saab Viggen?
What happend to the "DRAGONFLY" My brother flew the first one in Australia . I did the signwriting and art work.
that is sure efficient
9:10 YES, MY FAVORITE AIRCRAFT IS HERE!!!!
Not to forget the Eagle Aircraft 150 ... an Australian designed two-seat single-engine (125hp) composite aircraft. It has three lifting surfaces : forward wing (foreplane), main wing (mainplane) and horizontal stabilizer (tailplane). Originally designed and built by Eagle Aircraft Pty Ltd, and now manufactured in Malaysia. Good pilot visibility.
The Eagle was actually designed by American John Roncz, Burt Routan's wing designer.
Avanti is beautiful. I think they are really loud, though!
Extremely, as the flow over the wing is assymetric and thus impinges the propellers flow at different angles above and below the wing creating much more noise that similar-sized conventional twins. Same was true for the Starship, also a lovely-looking plane.
I've been listening to your comments requesting more footage of engine rooms and crew quarters, so in tomorrow's video of the astonishing Pershing 80 "Lounor" I take a far more thorough look at the yacht. I'm also especially pleased with some of the running shots, they really give an impression of the speed and handling of the yacht! I plan to publish it tomorrow at 10:00 CET.
Lookin for a plane, love canards!
I don't understand. You should have atleast 5M subscribers, you have great content 🍅🖒
Cool plane . I’ll get some merch soon when I can afford
You got one of the "honorable mentions" at 10:37 somewhat wrong, and there is actually quite a story behind this:
What was at some point offered as the "Bateleur" is actually a design by the german engineer Richter who called it the "Delta Dart".
It was developed to fit into the german ultralight category and it was also certified in that category (The design is still registered today). Unfortunately Richter crashed during a demonstration flight with a potential buyer and died.
Now here's where the Bateleur story begins: A german-austrian wannabe-entrepreneur named Von Schoenebeck had attempted to market the original plane, but once Richter was out of the picture he took some plans and tools, boarded a plane to South Africa and within a short period of time he suddenly came up with a brand new plane called "Bateleur" - which looked suspiciously similar to the "Delta Dart".
Alas, he had no commercial success. One empty hull of a bateleur was mounted outside an airfield, the red-and-silver one in your videoclip crashed and one still remains to be found.
what about the dragonfly?
@Mike Leuchs
I always liked the Dragonfly.
It a canard to call the Rutan Quickie a "Canard", it's a modified tandem wing biplane "Staggerwing"!
I have a v8 auto engine I'm considering doing a aircraft conversion. The parts list so far puts it at about 700 hp. Wonder if one of these planes could be modified for that.
De tune it to 250 to 300 hp. You will need a reduction drive. There are very good reasons very few automotive engines are used in aircraft.
There's a gentleman in Florida, I believe, who has built one with a Chevy LS motor. The plane is very fast and flies great he says. As for what HP level it is tuned to l don't know. There is a video of it on RUclips.
❤ the Quickie Q2
Beachfront starship +++
I love these airplanes
Do a video on the Megane MachBuster.
Raptor is coming!
Came here to see if the Raptor got a mention. Whilst the prototype hasn’t flown yet, as far as I know, it one of the few (if not only) completely new canard designs being developed. A lot of canards are derivates of Rutan’s designs, but the Raptor is original. If the Raptor’s design goals are met, it is going to be an amazing machine!
@@DiverJames I too came for this. I hope it pans out, I'd love to buy one if it even comes close to meeting its goals...
It'd be interesting to see the front rudder design again, but with downward/bidirectional winglet stabs on the main surface... this way you could conceivably put both the front and rear gear inside flight surfaces on already rigid members, and have tricycle gear. :+ )
the granddaddy wright flyer should be number one.
I am from India your any video I like
Strange that not many RC models of Canards exist.
Falcon UL with a PBS TJ100. Velocity Twin with TWO PBS TJ100 mounted Honda biz jet top wing pylon. I know, I know, I am a genious.
Its been my life dream have follow the space cowboy since the discovery or invention & continued development Burth Rutan, been to Lancaster Ca to see more of the grand accomplishment that it's been minimized as to the further development of the voyager into outer space, it's been a giant step o s in the canard design
Just "one" problem with canard wings: visibility. Anyways, a useful video.
Well, having flown a Long EZ i can tell you that you can only see the very tips of the canard, basically all you can see of the plane is the instrument panel and your legs if you look down. The visibility is like sitting on the tip of an arrow, you can see up, down and all around, nothing else comes close.