REFLECTOR: FG vs. RG thing

[Douglas Holub]

Thanks for grinning, Andy. For some reason, this subject can get a little 
touchy.

I wish someone would make the FG more aerodynamic so that there is only 2 or 
3 knots difference between RG and FG.  That would eliminate a lot of the RG 
attraction for a lot of people. There will still always be those that just 
like to design and build cool stuff, and the 2 or 3 knots will be a bonus. 
More power to them!  Experimental aircraft is all about recreation and 
education.

I saw some posts on the AeroCanard forum about how the tear drop shape of 
the gear legs is not parallel with the air flow and so they are not very 
aerodynamic. I also read that having the width to length ratio of the tear 
drop be at least 1:5 is important for low drag. I visited Herb Sanders' 
project in Memphis last year and saw that he had re-shaped his gear legs so 
that they were parallel to air flow and had the 1:5 ratio. They look pretty 
funky. I think I'll fly mine with the stock gear and then re-design the 
shape and see how much it helps. I'm at least a year away from flying, 
though, so don't anybody hold their breath waiting to hear the results.

Doug Holub
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Millin" <amillin at sbcglobal.net>
To: "'Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list'" <reflector at tvbf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: REFLECTOR: FG vs. RG thing


> Len,
>
> I saw your earlier post.  I was wondering if you had come to any
> conclusions.
>
> Please, read this with a grin, and stop me if you've heard this one 
> before.
> Hehehehehe
>
> Pretty much everything you hear on both sides is true.  I'm sure mileage 
> has
> varied but by-and-large there is a grain of truth in each point; good and
> bad.
>
> There are RGs that have flown for years without ANY problems.  There are
> others that have ground off their prop three times in the first year (and
> run over a camera or two at OSH -- hehehehe)
>
> I am not an expert or even a novice on retractable gear systems.  I am not
> qualified to comment on the Velocity's RG system.  I know they are good
> people and they try hard to make a good kit.  My sensibility tells me that
> even when an RG system is designed as the epitome of elegance and 
> simplicity
> it will still be a complex system.
>
> Because you are the builder the reliability of your aircraft falls upon 
> you.
> Many of the responses to this issue deal with making the guides the right
> height and making sure the thing doesn't get hung up on the lip of the
> thing.  (sorry, I'm an FG guy)  Nothing new here as you are responsible 
> for
> making the whole aircraft safe; nose-to-spinner.
>
> I'm not sure that I subscribe to the "there are those that have and those
> that will."  There have been pilots with very long careers that have flown
> thousands of hours in complex aircraft and never landed gear up.  Others
> that have repeatedly tested the true durability of the bottom skin of the
> fuselage.  Just because you can doesn't mean you will, it just means that
> you can.  Still grinning.
>
> This subject is like the seasons, it seems to come around with some
> regularity.  It is not unique to Velocity.  We do not see RG related
> incidents every day, week, or even month.  We do see a couple every year
> though.  It seems that when we do this topic has a real chance of coming 
> up.
>
> FWIW, here are some thoughts:
>
> The retractable gear on a Velocity will:
>
> Lower the drag of the aircraft making it more efficient, faster and
> smoother in flight
> Cost more
> Weigh more
> Take longer to build
> Will add considerably to the complexity of the aircraft
> (construction and later maintenance)
> Open new failure modes for the aircraft
> Add the possibility of landing with the gear up (either mechanical
> problem or pilot error)
> Cost more to insure
> Look totally cool in cruise
> It could be very satisfying to build and operate IF that is your
> thing
>
> The fixed gear list is almost the exact opposite
>
> Higher drag in flight making it slower and not as smooth in flight
> Cost less
> Weigh less
> Shorter build time
> Simpler aircraft
> Can't land gear up (gear down and cured)
> Easier to insure
> Easier to maintain
> Not as fast as RG, but with proper pants and fairings you can close
> the gap
> Won't look as cool in cruise
> It could be very satisfying to build and operate IF that is your
> thing
>
> You get to prioritize the list.
>
> Getting down to nuts and bolts you don't need an aircraft.  No one needs 
> RG
> and no one needs FG (but we do need G if we have an aircraft ... <g>). 
> What
> do you want?
>
> For my money, I'll not only take a ride in ANY Velocity no matter what 
> type
> of gear it has, I'll beg for one.  ;)
>
> Happy building,
>
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit 
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
> Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
>