Bassakwards

[Oldbaldguy]

35 minutes ago, FLMattModelling said:

"has always cost less although its range is shorter"  

 

That is a funny comment for the following reason. I am in the avionics business and had a customer that wanted his ELT changed in an Avanti. No joke, the Service Bulletin from Piaggio stated that installation to remove and install the new ELT was 250 hours of labor. The tail and fuel tank had to be removed to gain access, then re-installed when done.

 

It is a beautiful aircraft and I love the sound when one flies over. But, I would never own one for the maintenance alone.

I wish we had a bug-eyed, stupefied speechless emoji on this site cause I’d give you two or three for your input.  In case anyone is interested, the bill for the 250 manhours to change that little gizmo that is no bigger than a shoe box comes to more than three times what my first airplane cost me with full tanks, new tires and a fresh annual.  Amazing stuff.

[Archimedes]

56 minutes ago, FLMattModelling said:

"has always cost less although its range is shorter"  

 

That is a funny comment for the following reason. I am in the avionics business and had a customer that wanted his ELT changed in an Avanti. No joke, the Service Bulletin from Piaggio stated that installation to remove and install the new ELT was 250 hours of labor. The tail and fuel tank had to be removed to gain access, then re-installed when done.

 

It is a beautiful aircraft and I love the sound when one flies over. But, I would never own one for the maintenance alone.

I never said it was cheap….just less than a Starship 😁

 

Kind regards,

Paul 

[FLMattModelling]

1 minute ago, Oldbaldguy said:

I wish we had a bug-eyed, stupefied speechless emoji on this site cause I’d give you two or three for your input.  In case anyone is interested, the bill for the 250 manhours to change that little gizmo that is no bigger than a shoe box comes to more than three times what my first airplane cost me with full tanks, new tires and a fresh annual.  Amazing stuff.

 

 

When you figure labor rate at $150 per hour, that would give you a nearly $38,000 bill. And the ELT was $2-3k, so figure about $40,000 just to swap an ELT. But, if the aircraft goes down, you want that to work.

[FLMattModelling]

1 minute ago, Archimedes said:

I never said it was cheap….just less than a Starship 😁

 

Kind regards,

Paul 

 

 

LOL

 

I guess it depends on where the ELT is located in the Starship. We have never worked on one, so not willing to bet the bank.....yet.....  😉

 

[Oldbaldguy]

1 minute ago, FLMattModelling said:

 

 

When you figure labor rate at $150 per hour, that would give you a nearly $38,000 bill. And the ELT was $2-3k, so figure about $40,000 just to swap an ELT. But, if the aircraft goes down, you want that to work.

Okay.  Five times what I paid and mine came with an ELT that worked.

[Archimedes]

8 minutes ago, FLMattModelling said:

 

 

When you figure labor rate at $150 per hour, that would give you a nearly $38,000 bill. And the ELT was $2-3k, so figure about $40,000 just to swap an ELT. But, if the aircraft goes down, you want that to work.

The location of that ELT is a perfect example of why mechanics and technicians despise engineers (probably owners too when the get the bill…) 🫣

[Troy Molitor]

Interesting topic.  Someone provided a picture early on of the B-1B.  I wouldn't call the nose fins canards.  I would consider those strakes.  IMHO. They're usually found on the nose of an aircraft and strakes are typically used to stabilize an aircraft.  They could also be for improved airflow into the engine inlets.  I understood the inlets on the B-1B were serpentine in profile to try and reduce radar signature.  I could be wrong but I think the small fins are strakes.  Now the XB-70 Valkyrie has canards!  lol.   

 

I also love the sound a Piaggio makes with those reward pushing props.  Great topic gents.  

[Rampenfest]

28 minutes ago, Troy Molitor said:

Interesting topic.  Someone provided a picture early on of the B-1B.  I wouldn't call the nose fins canards.  I would consider those strakes.  IMHO. They're usually found on the nose of an aircraft and strakes are typically used to stabilize an aircraft.  They could also be for improved airflow into the engine inlets.  I understood the inlets on the B-1B were serpentine in profile to try and reduce radar signature.  I could be wrong but I think the small fins are strakes.  Now the XB-70 Valkyrie has canards!  lol.   

 

I also love the sound a Piaggio makes with those reward pushing props.  Great topic gents.  

I would agree with you as well. My understanding (I am not an expert lol) is that those strakes helped with airframe buffeting issues that were encountered during fast, low-level flying.

 

A fun thread indeed! 

[Archimedes]

When you think about it, few canard aircraft have had all the luck in the world in terms of timing or role (or both!): The Tupolev Tu-144, the XB-70 Valkyrie, the Beech Starship, the Kyushu J7W Shinden to name but a few...

[Pete Fleischmann]

Is this the time to ask for a 1/32 RAFAEL M?
 

P

[Archimedes]

On 3/14/2025 at 9:21 AM, tucohoward said:

This is a great video on the subject. I have watched it many times. Greg has excellent videos for anyone who likes the technical side of things.

 

Cheers,

Jay

Hi Jay and all,

 

I agree that how canards fly is a fascinating topic. Just so’s that we are not mistakenly at odds: I did not say that the Wrights were not first to fly (which the video seeks to dispel any suggestion of). I said “The Wrights were the first to fly under power and record documentary evidence that they did so.”. They flew first under control amongst a number of inventors who were trying to do the same thing around the world. That they were first is not in question by me on this thread. Nice video on the subject btw. 

 

What I am saying that the Flyer (and the gliders that preceded it were unstable in pitch (the Wrights knew this) and so are many canards that came after. Many could glide by 1903, the Wrights (and Charlie Taylor’s) achievements were:

a) Charlie Taylor’s lightweight engine design. 

b) Wilbur and Orville’s propeller design which translated the power available into proper forward thrust (one only has to look at the less effective efforts by everyone else in this respect at the time to see how far ahead the Wrights were). They did this through rigorous experimentation and diligent recording of their results.

c) Given all of their early designs were unstable in pitch, the Wrights knew that control of a rapidly diverging pitch attitude was more important than absolute stability.

d) The value of recording what they had done in written notes, photographs and film.

e) Patenting what they had done.

 

Kind regards,

Paul

Edited March 15 by Archimedes

[Oldbaldguy]

A tidbit about all this ‘who was first’ stuff has stuck with me for years.  There was a quasi government project two decades ago to build an accurate and flyable replica of the Wright’s first airplane in time for the hundredth anniversary of their feat and fly it on the world stage at the Wright Monument in North Carolina, just like the Wrights did.  I think NASA and maybe some other big names were involved.  Everything moved forward apace and the airplane was abuilding but they needed a pilot.  Enter a couple of hot shot astronaut/test pilot types - a guy and a gal - as candidates because they were the best of the best, had lots of experience and could fly anything, etc.  My master caution light strobed away in my head while reading this.  Both were accomplished pilots but therein lies the rub - they were skilled pilots who knew how to fly things that fly.  When the wrights first flew their canard biplane in 1903 no such people or equipment existed so there were no preconceived ideas about how things should work.  My immediate thought at the time was that wiser heads should have sought out an experienced weight-shift hang glider pilot or someone with no flying experience at all to attempt the flight because that is how Orville and Wilbur had to approach the mission.  But it seems that would have been neither marketable nor the American Way so, in the end, they picked one who immediately wrecked the replica, I believe while still on the rails or, at best, at the end of the track.  Although it could have flown, twitchy canard and all, it never did.  Tourists, spectators, media and big donors disappeared long before the ersatz Wright brother strapped to the wing could pick the sand from her teeth.  There were no follow-up attempts that I know of; no efforts to see if they could unlearn enough to go back to the good old days.   Apparently, it is easier to do the impossible these days than it is to do something that has already been done.

[Archimedes]

On 3/22/2025 at 10:36 AM, Oldbaldguy said:

A tidbit about all this ‘who was first’ stuff has stuck with me for years.  There was a quasi government project two decades ago to build an accurate and flyable replica of the Wright’s first airplane in time for the hundredth anniversary of their feat and fly it on the world stage at the Wright Monument in North Carolina, just like the Wrights did.  I think NASA and maybe some other big names were involved.  Everything moved forward apace and the airplane was abuilding but they needed a pilot.  Enter a couple of hot shot astronaut/test pilot types - a guy and a gal - as candidates because they were the best of the best, had lots of experience and could fly anything, etc.  My master caution light strobed away in my head while reading this.  Both were accomplished pilots but therein lies the rub - they were skilled pilots who knew how to fly things that fly.  When the wrights first flew their canard biplane in 1903 no such people or equipment existed so there were no preconceived ideas about how things should work.  My immediate thought at the time was that wiser heads should have sought out an experienced weight-shift hang glider pilot or someone with no flying experience at all to attempt the flight because that is how Orville and Wilbur had to approach the mission.  But it seems that would have been neither marketable nor the American Way so, in the end, they picked one who immediately wrecked the replica, I believe while still on the rails or, at best, at the end of the track.  Although it could have flown, twitchy canard and all, it never did.  Tourists, spectators, media and big donors disappeared long before the ersatz Wright brother strapped to the wing could pick the sand from her teeth.  There were no follow-up attempts that I know of; no efforts to see if they could unlearn enough to go back to the good old days.   Apparently, it is easier to do the impossible these days than it is to do something that has already been done.

That is interesting stuff to know because it seems to have been a precedent for other crashes of Wright replicas. There was one in 2021 when a Wright Flyer B replica crashed and killed both crew. 

https://www.flyingmag.com/news-wright-brothers-model-b-flyer-replica-crashes/

 

Other Flyer B crashes occurred in 2011 and 2024.  What is notable about the Flyer B is that it is not a canard as it appears the Wrights had realised that a canard tends toward divergent movement in pitch unless actively controlled by the pilot (and it is difficult!). Put your hand out of the window of your car palm down whilst moving quickly and then tilt it up relative to the airflow to understand what divergent movement feels like. 

 

A well-balanced elevator that is at the rear of the airflow will tend to bring the aircraft back to level flight. In contrast, even a well balanced elevator at the front will be much more prone to divergent pitch and resultant stall. I suspect that the reason canards have not been so prevalent is that they are just flat out harder to design well and definitely can be more difficult to fly if all of your experience is on a 'normal layout'. So OBG - I think your thesis is absolutely on the money regarding pilots and preconceptions. 

 

Kind regards,

Paul

 

 

[CRAZY IVAN5]

On 3/14/2025 at 10:10 AM, FLMattModelling said:

 

 

When you figure labor rate at $150 per hour, that would give you a nearly $38,000 bill. And the ELT was $2-3k, so figure about $40,000 just to swap an ELT. But, if the aircraft goes down, you want that to work.

What do aircraft run on? MONEY and lots of it!

[Oldbaldguy]

10 hours ago, Archimedes said:

 

A well-balanced elevator that is at the rear of the airflow will tend to bring the aircraft back to level flight. In contrast, even a well balanced elevator at the front will be much more prone to divergent pitch and resultant stall. I suspect that the reason canards have not been so prevalent is that they are just flat out harder to design well and definitely can be more difficult to fly if all of your experience is on a 'normal layout'. 

 

 

It’s a lot easier to pull a rope than to push one.