Canard of death?

dell30rb

dell30rb

Final Approach
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,147
Location
Raleigh NC
Display Name
Display name:
Ren
In the last month we have had two fatal experimental crashes in good weather during takeoff/landing phases, suggesting pilot error. One I know more details about, happened at my home airport with a pilot who had a fair amount of time in his Velocity RG. The other was a Cozy Mark Four, crashed over the weekend at another airport I am familiar with.

I'm sure these aircraft are not necessarily death traps, just less forgiving than what most of us are used to flying. They look pretty slippery so I am guessing they have a high stall speed, and some not so benign stall characteristics. Furthermore, the accident investigations have not been completed, its not out of the question that a terrible mechanical failure is to blame.

Can anyone shed some light for me on these designs? What is it like to fly them and what special precautions need to be taken?
 
They may be other issues like a longer runway required and higher landing speeds, but Rutan canard designs don't stall.

The canard provides 40% of the lift and is set at a higher angle of attack so it stalls before the main wing. If the canard stalls due to excesive AoA, the canard stops supplying lift, the nose lowers with reduced AoA, the canard flies again and breaks the stall. The main wing is at a lower AoA and never gets to critical AoA so it never stalls. You can hold the stick all the way back and it just bobs along.
 
Last edited:
Did you see the remnants of the Cozy that just went down in Lexington yesterday? I didn't even know there was a crash going on until I saw the news crews. Was pretty nasty looking.
 
mikea said:
The canard provides 40% of the lift and is set at a higher angle of attack so it stalls before the main wing, so it lowers the nose and breaks the stall. You can hold the stick all the way back and it just bobs along.
Click to expand...

Ah I do remember reading that somewhere.

Something to think about... in my opinion a slick, high speed single with a small wing, flown properly is going to be inherently more dangerous than your 182, cherokee, 210 or whatever. If you lose your engine in a single there is a very good chance you'll be making an off airport landing. In an airplane with a 75 knot glide speed and 60 knot approach speed, (round' here) there are a TON of options as your average cow pasture or cornfield is plenty big. Even if you have to put it in the trees, a controlled entry at 45-55 knots is very survivable.

For an airplane with fast glide and approach speeds, your number of options for an off-airport landing are significantly decreased. And a controlled "landing" in the trees is going to be much more hazardous. This is more acceptable in a twin - if you lose an engine you're still in some trouble but you are probably going to make it to an airport.
 
dell30rb said:
Ah I do remember reading that somewhere.

Something to think about... in my opinion a slick, high speed single with a small wing, flown properly is going to be inherently more dangerous than your 182, cherokee, 210 or whatever. If you lose your engine in a single there is a very good chance you'll be making an off airport landing. In an airplane with a 75 knot glide speed and 60 knot approach speed, (round' here) there are a TON of options as your average cow pasture or cornfield is plenty big. Even if you have to put it in the trees, a controlled entry at 45-55 knots is very survivable.

For an airplane with fast glide and approach speeds, your number of options for an off-airport landing are significantly decreased. And a controlled "landing" in the trees is going to be much more hazardous. This is more acceptable in a twin - if you lose an engine you're still in some trouble but you are probably going to make it to an airport.
Click to expand...

hand-point-up-2.jpg


That. Higher speed means more exponentially more energy. Means harder crashes.
 
I read somewhere the lancair's best glide is 165 mph. I can imagine it would be quite difficult to make a safe engine out landing here in NC. In other (very flat) parts of the country it would be just fine. But around here there would just not be very many options. I did lotsa practice engine out scenarios and the field that looks good from 2000 feet is most likely going to have a hill, ditch, bushes, or something else you need to dodge. Not so much of a problem in a PA-28 or 172 but they are a much slower aircraft.

IMO the BRS 'chute is a necessity for very fast, high performance singles.
 
dell30rb said:
Something to think about... in my opinion a slick, high speed single with a small wing, flown properly is going to be inherently more dangerous than your 182, cherokee, 210 or whatever.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how much time you have in "a slick, high speed single with a small wing." My experience is that when flown properly, they're all equally safe (or equally dangerous). IOW, I think it's the skill of the pilot which dominates, not the flight characteristics of the airplane. As I've said before, the part of the aircraft most critical to safety is the nut which holds the stick.

BTW, those "slick" planes usually have much better glide ratios (inherent with their lower drag designs), so even if you're landing faster, you have way more choices of where to land, and that can make a big difference.
 
For those who believe the canard designs will not stall. tell me the difference between a sink rate of 2000' stalled and a sink rate of 2000' with no stall.

pull the canard up as high as it will go, and pull power see what happens.
 
dell30rb said:
I read somewhere the lancair's best glide is 165 mph.
Click to expand...
That's pretty close to the Glasair III's 140 knots clean (120 knots in landing configuration).

I can imagine it would be quite difficult to make a safe engine out landing here in NC. In other (very flat) parts of the country it would be just fine. But around here there would just not be very many options. I did lotsa practice engine out scenarios and the field that looks good from 2000 feet is most likely going to have a hill, ditch, bushes, or something else you need to dodge. Not so much of a problem in a PA-28 or 172 but they are a much slower aircraft.
Click to expand...
While more speed does make engine-out landings more problematic, that's not the only factor in aircraft safety.

If you look through the NTSB records, engine failures in singles are not the dominant problem. The biggest single problem is failure of pilots to control aircraft which were working perfectly up until impact, and that goes back to basic pilot skills formed in their early days in primary training -- often in airplanes which let them get away with being sloppy. If everyone learned to fly in more demanding airplanes, everyone would be better at stick-and-rudder flying, and maybe that would make many of those "failure to control" accidents go away.
 
Tom-D said:
For those who believe the canard designs will not stall. tell me the difference between a sink rate of 2000' stalled and a sink rate of 2000' with no stall.

pull the canard up as high as it will go, and pull power see what happens.
Click to expand...

The difference is having or not having a low altitude stall/spin.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm curious how much time you have in "a slick, high speed single with a small wing." My experience is that when flown properly, they're all equally safe (or equally dangerous). IOW, I think it's the skill of the pilot which dominates, not the flight characteristics of the airplane. As I've said before, the part of the aircraft most critical to safety is the nut which holds the stick.
Click to expand...

I have zero time.

I thought I made it pretty clear that when the skill of the pilot is not in question, IMO the fast plane is going to have more trouble with an off airport landing for two reasons:

1) It lands faster, and requires a much bigger, smoother field. Enough to significantly reduce the number of off-airport sites available for a landing.

2) If you can't find any fields to land in, and you need to put it into the treetops, you are going in at a significantly higher speed than a cessna 172 or comparable. As steingar pointed out, the relationship btw speed and energy is exponential. 10-15 knots faster can mean you will impact with nearly double the energy.

If you lose your engine over the mountains and are forced to execute a controlled crash into the treetops, which aircraft are you more likely to walk away from? Piper Warrior or a Lancair IV?

Best pilot in the world in each aircraft, the one that crashes into the tops at 40 knots will be 'safer' than the one crashing at close to 60
 
Originally Posted by Tom-D
For those who believe the canard designs will not stall. tell me the difference between a sink rate of 2000' stalled and a sink rate of 2000' with no stall.

pull the canard up as high as it will go, and pull power see what happens.
Click to expand...
:nono: :no: :nonod:

Since this guy is on my ignore (for good reason) list I missed this mistaken comment. Obviously has no experience in canards but won't let that stop the wild remarks.

When I pull the stick completely back on my Long EZ:
With power - just bobs a little with a climb rate of about 500 fpm.
Without power - just bobs a little with descent rate of about 600 fpm.
Yes I believe.

I sure wish people would get their facts straight before posting these outrageous and inaccurate remarks but then I know I'm just dreaming.....:dunno:

Oh well....
 
Ron Levy said:
If you look through the NTSB records, engine failures in singles are not the dominant problem. The biggest single problem is failure of pilots to control aircraft which were working perfectly up until impact, and that goes back to basic pilot skills formed in their early days in primary training
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you here, I know the statistics. However as we all know when a single loses its engine, its coming down. Most likely off airport. This happens all the time. And an airplane that lands in a significantly shorter distance with significantly less speed is going to have more options for a safe landing.
 
flyingriki said:
I sure wish people would get their facts straight before posting these outrageous and inaccurate remarks but then I know I'm just dreaming.....:dunno:

Oh well....
Click to expand...


Never let facts and experience get in the way of speculation and irrational thinking :nono:

as they say in the newspaper industry if it bleeds it leads
 
Ron Levy said:
If you look through the NTSB records, engine failures in singles are not the dominant problem.
Click to expand...

No, but they do make up a significant fraction, especially with experimentals, especially with auto conversions. Even though they have more glide, if you can't glide to an airport you've a lot of energy to expend on whatever it is you do land in. With up to 4 times the energy of a certificated aircraft, the landing could hurt quite a bit.

Ron Levy said:
The biggest single problem is failure of pilots to control aircraft which were working perfectly up until impact, and that goes back to basic pilot skills formed in their early days in primary training -- often in airplanes which let them get away with being sloppy. If everyone learned to fly in more demanding airplanes, everyone would be better at stick-and-rudder flying, and maybe that would make many of those "failure to control" accidents go away.
Click to expand...

If demanding aircraft were the only ones available, more people would crash. That's what happened in both World Wars, more pilots crashed in training, takeoff, and landing than in combat.

It is far easier to allow a slippery more demanding aircraft to get away from you than a more forgiving one. Yeah, if everyone did everything perfectly all the time we wouldn't need the NTSB, cops, or soldiers. Indeed we'd all live with unicorns and rainbows. But since we're all imperfect human beings, this whole "the airplane works fine when flown by the numbers" thing isn't worth the electrons I'm writing this in.
 
dell30rb said:
I have zero time.

I thought I made it pretty clear that when the skill of the pilot is not in question, IMO the typical trainer is going to have more trouble with an off airport landing for two reasons:

1) It lands faster, and requires a much bigger, smoother field. Enough to significantly reduce the number of off-airport sites available for a landing.

2) If you can't find any fields to land in, and you need to put it into the treetops, you are going in at a significantly higher speed than a Highlander or comparable. As steingar pointed out, the relationship btw speed and energy is exponential. 10-15 knots faster can mean you will impact with nearly double the energy.

If you lose your engine over the mountains and are forced to execute a controlled crash into the treetops, which aircraft are you more likely to walk away from? Highlander or a Piper Warrior?

Best pilot in the world in each aircraft, the one that crashes into the tops at 20 knots will be 'safer' than the one crashing at close to 40
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you! :) In other words, it's all relative, and we really can't use only the stall speed to judge the safety of an aircraft.
 
dell30rb said:
I thought I made it pretty clear that when the skill of the pilot is not in question, IMO the fast plane is going to have more trouble with an off airport landing
Click to expand...
OK, I'll buy that. But that's a far cry from saying that those planes are "inherently more dangerous," which was your original statement. I think the difference between us is that I don't see the ability of a plane to land after an engine failure as a major safety issue because engine failures are comparatively rare compared to accidents caused by pilot errors. And if you compare the accident rates of some "slick" planes like Piper Malibus with those of "easy" planes like 172's, I think you'll find the "slick" planes have lower rates, probably because their pilots are more skilled and more experienced.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
OK, I'll buy that. But that's a far cry from saying that those planes are "inherently more dangerous," which was your original statement. I think the difference between us is that I don't see the ability of a plane to land after an engine failure as a major safety issue because engine failures are comparatively rare compared to accidents caused by pilot errors. And if you compare the accident rates of some "slick" planes like Piper Malibus with those of "easy" planes like 172's, I think you'll find the "slick" planes have lower rates, probably because their pilots are more skilled and more experienced.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, the accident rate for fixed wing non-commercial due to engine failure is something like 15%. The mandated 60 knot stall speed in landing config is reasonable and so, it is not a major issue.

However, in amateur built aircraft its rather high. From the '08 Nall report

On the other hand, the
shares attributed to mechanical failures (22%)
and unexplained losses of engine power (12%)
were noticeably higher. Together they accounted
for more than one-third (34%) of all accidents in
amateur-built airplane
Click to expand...
 
The FAA is well aware of the disturbingly high rate of accidents related to mechanical/material failure in E-AB aircraft, especially during the first few flights. But many of those are the lightest, simplest planes using noncertified engines. I guess the answer is if you're going to fly noncertified hardware, have a chute, but I don't think that means that folks should be terrified of engine failures in Cessna 210's or SR22's or consider them more "dangerous" than Cessna 172's or Piper Warriors.
 
Ron Levy said:
but I don't think that means that folks should be terrified of engine failures in Cessna 210's or SR22's or consider them more "dangerous" than Cessna 172's or Piper Warriors.
Click to expand...

True... my post was more geared toward experimental aircraft some of which stall at 60+ knots. However, you are right, I calling them "inherently dangerous" was unfair.

I'd happily fly a 210 or similar. Not trying to be a sheeple but I am a little wary because of recent events. Since I have been a pilot (not that long) there have been three fatal accidents at the airports I frequent. 2 out of 3 were the fast, canard airplanes, in CAVU daylight. I know that this is not a fair representation of the fast - experimental fleet but I gotta say it looks bad!

Before I get jumped all over, I would love to fly in a long-ez or other canard airplane. But I would be extremely careful of who I got in that airplane with!
 
It should be noted that although the accident rate for GA and EX/Ab is high, it is on a par with that of motorcycles, which receive no federal scrutiny at all.
 
dell30rb said:
But I would be extremely careful of who I got in that airplane with!
Click to expand...

That applies to any aircraft! I'm always amazed at folks who blindly relegate their children to Young Eagle pilots without knowing a thing about them. Some of these parents say they'd never get in a small plane :yikes:

What airfield are you talking about? I'm always curious about canard accidents.
 
flyingriki said:
That applies to any aircraft! I'm always amazed at folks who blindly relegate their children to Young Eagle pilots without knowing a thing about them. Some of these parents say they'd never get in a small plane :yikes:
Click to expand...

They know more about pilots flying their kids then they do about the pilots flying their commuter jets. 1.2 million kids flown with one fatality.
 
dell30rb said:
I'm sure these aircraft are not necessarily death traps, just less forgiving than what most of us are used to flying.
Click to expand...

Man, I know what you mean. Just yesterday in my town alone there were THREE vehicle accidents involving Chevrolet pickups. Those things are dangerous, I'll never drive one!

:yikes:
 
flyingriki said:
That applies to any aircraft! I'm always amazed at folks who blindly relegate their children to Young Eagle pilots without knowing a thing about them. Some of these parents say they'd never get in a small plane :yikes:

What airfield are you talking about? I'm always curious about canard accidents.
Click to expand...

One was at KEXX over the weekend and the other was at my home base KTTA in late september.

http://kathrynaviationnews.com/?p=13816

here is the prelim from that report. I did not know it was available when i started this thread today. Looks like he may have had engine trouble and attempted the impossible turn. A shame because there is a field just off to the right of runway 3 where he crashed. Big ditch running through the middle but much better than the trees.

Is 2000 feet a normal takeoff roll for the velocity rg? One thing to note, if he had a lack of power on the takeoff roll there is plenty of room to abort on our 6500 foot runway.

The aircraft burned. They interviewed the people who were trying to help him... he was alive but later died of burns. Pretty awful way to go.


On September 25, 2011, about 1243 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Hutchinson Velocity RG, N360TV, was destroyed during collision with flat, wooded terrain after takeoff from Raleigh Executive Jetport at Sanford-Lee County Airport (TTA). The certificated private pilot was fatally injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local personal flight that was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

According to a flight instructor and student pilot, they were performing touch-and-go landings at TTA at the time of the accident. While on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, the instructor heard the accident pilot announce he was taxiing to the takeoff runway, and several minutes later the accident pilot announced the takeoff roll.

While on the downwind leg of the subsequent traffic pattern, the student noticed that the accident airplane did not rotate for takeoff until it reached the 2,000-foot marker on the runway. He thought this was unusual, as his single engine Cessna was normally off the ground in half that distance.

While on the base leg of the traffic pattern the student noticed the accident airplane at “very low” altitude, in a continuous, descending left turn in the vicinity of the crosswind to downwind legs of the traffic pattern. The airplane then disappeared from view, and a fireball appeared from the woods.

According Federal Aviation (FAA) records, the pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single engine. The pilot's most recent FAA third-class medical certificate was issued on September 15, 2011. On that date, he reported 375 total hours of flight experience, with no flight experience during the previous six months.

According to FAA, and maintenance records, the airplane was manufactured in 1996 had accrued 143.8 total aircraft hours as of May 2011. The most recent annual inspection was completed March 1, 2008, at 131.8 total aircraft hours, and no subsequent maintenance actions were logged. In May, 2011, the pilot/owner asked the aircraft maintenance facility at TTA to draft a list of discrepancies on the airplane that required correction to return the airplane to an airworthy status and prior to a possible sale. Among the discrepancies listed were, “Landing Gear Switch Inop[erative]” and “[Turbocharger] Waste Gate Froze[n].”
Click to expand...


The other

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8402395


Nick I never saw good pics of the crash. Did you see it yourself?
 
Last edited:
Well, based on that prelim, I see absolutely nothing that points to a canard design or high stall speed as being the cause. OTOH, it doesn't look as if the plane was legally airworthy. So I fully support you in a decision to avoid flying non-airworthy aircraft because they may be more dangerous!
 
Re: Canard Issues...?

These are awfully sad. I just heard of the Cozy accident and the owner's group has been contacted to help with understanding the wreckage and construction etc.
We'll just have to wait for the final analysis, if it achieves anything conclusive. Many really don't.

I really wish you'd change the name of this thread. That's not a very pleasant combination of words.....:hairraise:

We definitely have the disadvantage of a higher landing speed than, say, a C-150, C-172, Cherokee or many other slower aircraft. The physics of this have been well documented. And our landing gear is not usually set up for off field landings. However there are many aircraft that have the same or higher landing speeds but - we also share the advantage of much better performance and economy. With an excellent glide ratio we do have more options than most. I pulled all power once at 6500' and 23 miles from home yet still had to do a 360 to get down to land at 67' into a stiff headwind.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm curious how much time you have in "a slick, high speed single with a small wing." My experience is that when flown properly, they're all equally safe (or equally dangerous). IOW, I think it's the skill of the pilot which dominates, not the flight characteristics of the airplane. As I've said before, the part of the aircraft most critical to safety is the nut which holds the stick.

BTW, those "slick" planes usually have much better glide ratios (inherent with their lower drag designs), so even if you're landing faster, you have way more choices of where to land, and that can make a big difference.
Click to expand...

In an off-airport landing, a slower aircraft will almost always be safer because of the roll-out distance and kinetic energy involved. Canards sacrifice in that area, but avoid the stall or stall/spin potential of most conventional aircraft.

I know I'd rather make an off-airport landing in a Cub than a Lancair, and would appreciate the "low speed" handling of a canard over a Lancair too. The one advantage the Lancair would have over a canard is having an engine out front to (hopefully) provide a battering ram/crush zone if you hit something of substance.
 
Clearly doesn't seem to affect these models, but any of the canard flyers here care to comment about the wing attach metal fitting corrosion problem in the vari-Eze and/or Long-EZ. I've been looking for an economical experimental (sold my C-150 and out of the certified side of things, frustrated with PMA costs) and was interested in these types but then I read up on the wing attach fitting corrosion problem and lost my interest in the canards. Not a builder type, I'm a turn key type, which is why this allegation spooked me.

Again doesn't seem as though structural failure was the source of these incidents, just want to get the perspective of current canard flyers on the corrosion issue. Is that why variezes are priced accordingly? Don't mean to hijack thread hijack btw, figured it goes to the safety perception discussion on the EZ lineup.
 
steingar said:
It should be noted that although the accident rate for GA and EX/Ab is high, it is on a par with that of motorcycles, which receive no federal scrutiny at all.
Click to expand...

Actually (and alas) motorcycles have come to their attention, as seen in this 13 page document:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Comm...on/Articles/Associated Files/4640-report2.pdf

Then consider the following (I don't think the author of this article is joking:)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/citylin...o-ban-the-motorcycle-20110613,0,4414821.story

Sorry for the thread drift - though not much, since I think the OP was way off base in the title and assumptions.
 
Title was a joke

How bout "lions and tigers and canards, oh my!"
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
Clearly doesn't seem to affect these models, but any of the canard flyers here care to comment about the wing attach metal fitting corrosion problem in the vari-Eze and/or Long-EZ. I've been looking for an economical experimental (sold my C-150 and out of the certified side of things, frustrated with PMA costs) and was interested in these types but then I read up on the wing attach fitting corrosion problem and lost my interest in the canards. Not a builder type, I'm a turn key type, which is why this allegation spooked me.
Click to expand...

I looked into this before buying my VariEze earlier this year. It's not too big a deal. Get an aircraft that's been hangared for most of its life, or at least not kept outside in a corrosion-prone climate. Make sure the wing attach fittings have been inspected according to Rutan's directive. Don't seal them at the bottom, to prevent accumulation of water. Don't fly high-g aerobatics.

The corrosion problem is certainly not endemic to the fleet - I think it has been found to occur in two aircraft. They were designed to a high loading, 6+g, so there is plenty of margin if you are going to keep it below 2.5g in use.
 
steingar said:
It should be noted that although the accident rate for GA and EX/Ab is high, it is on a par with that of motorcycles, which receive no federal scrutiny at all.
Click to expand...
They have strength in numbers. 1 rider == 1 vote. 1 pilot == 1 vote, so 10,000,000 riders == 10,000,000 votes. And numbers of pilots are small and shrinking rapidly. No wonder Feds gangbang on us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top