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!

It's unfortunate that most of those got broken up by Beech instead of sold.

I've loved that plane for decades

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.

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 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.

Sounds like it needs a different name lol

@@IdiotWithEducation he could have called it a truck stop special.

@@michaellowe3665 lol

@@michaellowe3665 lol

Indeed.

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!

Thank you! I’m going to take you up on that offer, I’ve always loved the velocity models!

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🤑

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.

Electric propulsion would probably revive the model as the Quickie is infamous for its engine-out accidents.

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.

Your brother built the Van's?!

@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?

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!

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."

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!

@@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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?😂

That is a wild first plane to fly in!

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.

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.

Velocity is working on a 6-seater version of the twin...no larger though.

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.

www.google.com/search?q=beechcraft+gulfstream+starship&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjfoJHK68PqAhXV_KwKHUxiCjkQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=beechcraft+gulfstream+starship&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQA1CDcljUlwFgpKYBaABwAHgAgAFTiAGiBpIBAjExmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ei=CfoIX5_4IdX5swXMxKnIAw&bih=1088&biw=1758

@@macrumpton But much larger. 2-300 souls.

What would be the point?

@@codetech5598 Don't ever question genius when it's making magic.

​@@codetech5598 The point would be greater flying distance, superior fuel efficiency, greater cargo capacity, better stability and possibly greater speeds.

Ooo I’ll make one! I’ve been having fun designing shirts, a Cherokee would be fun to make

Thanks for buying a shirt!

FloridaFlying awesome. Please make the Hershey bar wing Cherokee. I love the distinctive look, plus it’s what I fly.

Dan S just letting you know I recently made a Cherokee shirt! No pressure to buy it though, I have fun designing them. I’ve been doing all my favorite planes, and the Cherokee was on that list

FloridaFlying fantastic! I just purchased your Cherokee tee shirt. Thanks! If you made a Cherokee shirt just like the original Florida flying tee with the top view of the Cherokee and the state of Florida I would buy that too. Just food for thought. Lol. Cheers!