X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Charlie and Tupper England wrote:

Sadly, Bill's right, & Walt's idea won't guarantee that all is ok.

While a student pilot, I bought a Dragonfly which the owner told me had
had the canard broken & repaired. I loaded the canard to over 4 Gs, used
microphones on the surface to listen for cracking sounds, etc before
assembling the plane. On it's 2nd flight after reassembly the test pilot
(my instructor) let it bounce slightly on landing. The canard collapsed.
Inspection of the structure at the brake revealed aerosol insulation
foam used to fill voids in the foam core.
Charlie and Tupper England

Opps that kind of foam is a no no!

Landing gears need to be better than 4 G's I would say.
Six G's minimum and ten for hard landings.
That makes that kind of end-of-the-canard landing gear
too heavy. Nice try Burt but no cigar on that one :-)

Paul Lamar

In Burt's defense, he didn't design either the Q2 or Dragonfly. I've not
heard of major problems with the original Quickie.

The real issue is inspectability of construction (see above).

Charlie

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org