Rutan Defiant

Morne

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name
Display name:
Morne
Never should have gone to Oshkosh and seen all those lovely canards and been entranced by the Velocity V-Twin prototype...

Doing some research, it would seem that the Velocity V-Twin is not the first composite canard light twin. The first was the Rutan Defiant and it was an inline twin much like the old Cessna 337.

Now I am going to end up in a twin eventually. Save the arguments, it is decided. Probably about 5 years from now after the house is paid off. I like the inline simplicity of the Cessna 337, I like the look of canards and my background lends itself well to composites.

But HOLY SMOKES, the Rutan Defiant is a rare bird! I have found one partially worked on project and zero completed birds for sale. Anybody know of flying examples, for sale or not?
 
Morne said:
Never should have gone to Oshkosh and seen all those lovely canards and been entranced by the Velocity V-Twin prototype...

Doing some research, it would seem that the Velocity V-Twin is not the first composite canard light twin. The first was the Rutan Defiant and it was an inline twin much like the old Cessna 337.

Now I am going to end up in a twin eventually. Save the arguments, it is decided. Probably about 5 years from now after the house is paid off. I like the inline simplicity of the Cessna 337, I like the look of canards and my background lends itself well to composites.

But HOLY SMOKES, the Rutan Defiant is a rare bird! I have found one partially worked on project and zero completed birds for sale. Anybody know of flying examples, for sale or not?
Click to expand...

Yeah I met a Gulfstream test pilot down in Savannah who keeps his in the open shade hangers. Not for sale though. Spruce sells an excellent DVD on canards that takes place at the annual fly-in at Rough River. In it they detail a nice Defiant with good interview with the owner and inside the cockpit flying footage. Of course there's the old Rutan video out there where his brother Dick is flying the heck out of that thing! Always liked the Defiant just not many out there to choose from.
 
A guy flew a Defiant into Adam's Philly do a couple years ago. He claimed it took 14,000 hours to build. No kits. Probably why there aren't so many out there.
 
> the inline simplicity of the Cessna 337

Anyone who has turned wrenches on the C337 would not use the word
"simplicity" to describe the airframe or experience.

A buddy built & flies a Defiant; N7HM. It was at OSH. Construction took
15 years. (Not a typo)
 
Last edited:
rainsux said:
> the inline simplicity of the Cessna 337

Anyone who has turned wrenches on the C337 would not use the word
"simplicity" to describe the airframe or experience.

A buddy built & flies a Defiant; N7HM. It was at OSH. Construction took
15 years. (Not a typo)
Click to expand...
What you refer to is maintenance accessibility on the 337. I am referring to flyability.

A better question would be whether or not your buddy's defiant is as hard to work on. He should know.:idea:
 
If I was ever in the market for a canard i'd pick the Velocity RG.

But Hummel (W75) is an airport I frequent with no close alternative. Its 2250x30 so that's out.

One of my friends has a few hundred hrs in a 337 with a STOL kit. Cool plane.. he flew for a company that ferried wildlife researchers around and was frequently in and out of short strips.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
A guy flew a Defiant into Adam's Philly do a couple years ago. He claimed it took 14,000 hours to build. No kits. Probably why there aren't so many out there.
Click to expand...

Yup he ends up at Wings every now and then.
 
Not only no kits, but you can't get the plans either.
 
dell30rb said:
If I was ever in the market for a canard i'd pick the Velocity RG.

But Hummel (W75) is an airport I frequent with no close alternative. Its 2250x30 so that's out.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize they needed more runway than that. Gee, I've been in and OUT of Hummel in my Tiger with ease.
 
The problem is that canard airplanes do not have flaps typically. The canard flies with a higher area loading than the main wing and produces a disproportionate amount of lift. This is done to create static stability and also makes it stall first. Adding flaps to the main wing would be pointless because the stall speed would not be decreased. So in the end you make a no-flap landing every time.
 
What Peter said. Thus Canards all tend to land faster and need more runway. Not the best aircraft for operations off of short turf strips. They do go fast though, and those made from composites tend to glide for a long time. That's good, if the mill goes quiet you're going to be hitting terra firma with lots of energy. With luck you have sufficient glide to choose which spot on terra firma you want to hit, say a nice long runway.
 
My home field is over 5000' long, so runway length is not a big deal. My main mission destination airport's runway is about 4500' long, again shouldn't be a problem.
 
Morne said:
My home field is over 5000' long, so runway length is not a big deal. My main mission destination airport's runway is about 4500' long, again shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

The problem is if you loose the mill over hostile terrain, you're going to be crashing with 4 times the energy of most spam cans. The Defiant does get around this to some degree with the extra mill.
 
steingar said:
The problem is if you loose the mill over hostile terrain, you're going to be crashing with 4 times the energy of most spam cans. The Defiant does get around this to some degree with the extra mill.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Twins might have a lot of headaches, but they sure are nice when/if a fan quits turning (other than due to fuel exhaustion).

To a certain degree I don't even want a slick bird of any kind unless it is a twin. I can land my 182 almost anywhere (excepting mountains and far from shore) and probably survive. But something like a Lancair/Columbia/Glasair/canard seems to be an off-field nightmare.

That I have flown my 182 over mountains and water in my first year of ownership just reinforces my desire for a twin.
 
steingar said:
What Peter said. Thus Canards all tend to land faster and need more runway. Not the best aircraft for operations off of short turf strips. They do go fast though, and those made from composites tend to glide for a long time. That's good, if the mill goes quiet you're going to be hitting terra firma with lots of energy. With luck you have sufficient glide to choose which spot on terra firma you want to hit, say a nice long runway.
Click to expand...

what makes you think they have a better glide range than a "normal" airplane?
 
I think I read that the Defiant's best glide is a 19:1 ratio at 105 knots.
 
Is it the Piaggio, Starship, or "both" that sweep the canard when the main wing is clean and "un-sweep" the canard when the main wing flaps are out?
 
The Piaggio isn't a strict canard. It has a forward fixed canard (no control surfaces) that provides a bit of lift up front, but has a conventional elevator and horizontal stabilizer on the T tail. The Beech Starship did have the variable sweep you describe.
 
The good glide ratios are mostly due to the long wing span. Gotta 32 ft wing span on the Velocity with very little drag so it floats forever. Also mine stalls at 60 kts but I don't have VGs on the canard. Velocity's SUV with VGs stalls at 50 kts. Not bad for a homebuilt.
 
Last edited:
I understand why they don't put flaps on them, but you'd think speed brakes would be popular amongst the canard set.
 
I've heard a lot about the long ez and other canard's glide ratios as well. Something about a power off 360 to land starting at 300 agl being performed at an airshow

I don't know exactly how the short field performance is but I don't believe it's a strong point. 2300 ft is probably pushing it if not suicide in a long ez or similar.

A good point made about the high speed crash landings. One fatality at my airport since I've been flying, and it was a velocity RG that lost the engine on takeoff, went into the trees and caught fire. However investigation revealed the airplane had some known maintenance issues.

Still I like the design and it would be nice to have a lightning fast and fuel sipping airplane. It's a compromise like everything else
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Not only no kits, but you can't get the plans either.
Click to expand...

Unless there is a set of plans being held privately.

But since they were assigned to individuals, that individual would have to be involved with the build. (I think, anyway...)

One of my co-owners still has his original Long-EZ plans.

Rutan stopped selling plans, but didn't buy back the ones already out there.
 
denverpilot said:
Unless there is a set of plans being held privately.

But since they were assigned to individuals, that individual would have to be involved with the build. (I think, anyway...)

One of my co-owners still has his original Long-EZ plans.

Rutan stopped selling plans, but didn't buy back the ones already out there.
Click to expand...

There are two open source projects that have the drawings, but a set of templates are what is hard to find.

but there are computer cut foam parts for sale in a few places.

builders books = chicken lips.
 
dell30rb said:
I've heard a lot about the long ez and other canard's glide ratios as well. Something about a power off 360 to land starting at 300 agl being performed at an airshow
Click to expand...

Canards are not magic. The 360 degree circle to land is started at something higher than pattern airspeed. Also the comment earlier in the thread about a 25:1 glide ratio is off by a bit. 16:1 seems to be the consensus on the canard forums.

Rutan canards and derivatives thereof are fast in the same way a Glasair or Lancair is fast. Minimal wetted area and minimum frontal area. You achieve that by skimping on elbow room and wing area.
 
Morne said:
I understand why they don't put flaps on them, but you'd think speed brakes would be popular amongst the canard set.
Click to expand...

They are very popular..
 
Morne said:
I understand why they don't put flaps on them, but you'd think speed brakes would be popular amongst the canard set.
Click to expand...

Yeah a lot of them have a big belly board speed brake. I don't have one but once I get to the 120 kt gear speed I put down the gear and it slows it up pretty good. I've never seen a glide ratio for a Velocity but I'd say it's as good as a Berkut (18:1). I believe a C-172 is 9:1 or 10:1. They might touchdown in the trees slower by I might be able to glide to a runway.:wink2:
 
kyleb said:
The Starship.
Click to expand...

Is it just me or is the Starship the penultimate general aviation propeller twin?

I've had the pleasure of walking around one and hangar flying it with a few pilots and it was a religious experience.

Someday...
 
mbundy said:
Is it just me or is the Starship the penultimate general aviation propeller twin?
Click to expand...

Evidently not, or Beech would have been able to sell them.
 
kyleb said:
Canards are not magic. The 360 degree circle to land is started at something higher than pattern airspeed. Also the comment earlier in the thread about a 25:1 glide ratio is off by a bit. 16:1 seems to be the consensus on the canard forums.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, thank you.
 
tonycondon said:
really? what were the reasons then?
Click to expand...

Presumably the same corrupt and incompetent management that racked up 2.5 billions in debt, wanted taxpayers to bail them out with huge margins at LAS contract, then waged dishonest "Made in America" PR campain when the obvious decision came against them. And sold the whole shebang to Chinese in the end, natch. Made out like bandits the whole time, of course.

Starship was long before the matters came to the head in this ignomious manner, but same people held the tiller.
 
really? starship was at least 2 corporate buyouts ago. i don't doubt that there wasn't poor management but i doubt it was the same people as today.

I've probably heard too many stories about Starship from the people who were actually there at the time.
 
I understood it was the high buy in for the low performance, you could buy a jet for less money and get a bigger cabin.
 
The reasons were simple. Beech guaranteed the buyers of the first batch of ship-sets (~60 planes IIRC) with certain performance numbers. If the plane didn't achieve the specs when the certification process was completed, the buyers could walk their contract and receive a full refund of their down-stroke. Most did.

Beech then leased most of the completed but unsold airplanes for a while, while searching for a solution to the weight and performance issues, but quickly concluded the problem was insurmountable. To cut their fleet support losses, the company eventually bought back most of the fleet from owners who had taken delivery. In some cases they took the old starship and gave the customer a new 350 in exchange. Within the last few years I managed the acquisition of one of those 350's for a Dallas-based client.

Tom-D said:
I understood it was the high buy in for the low performance, you could buy a jet for less money and get a bigger cabin.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top