Yeah, but in the latest video he figured he doesn't need to blast the heat in the cabin, he just needs to activate this loop to add the thermal mass of the extra gallons of cold coolant in the system. How did you like the tell-tales added at the cooler output port to evaluate the flow through there? Maybe an anemometer would help...

When he completed the first flight, people were telling him that he needed to address the issue, and how to do it effectively. He dismissed them as requiring too much time.

He’s now wasted very likely twice as much time on something that won’t work, can’t be taken to production, and doesn’t address the real problem.

All the work he has done in the last 6 months has been nothing but bandaid after bandaid after bandaid.

All the work he has done in the last 6 months has been nothing but bandaid after bandaid after bandaid.

Did you try adding some angle iron to stiffen it up a bit and reduce your useful load?

That flexing may not be comforting, but it is designed to do that and it can take a LOT more before failing.

Without me having to read this whole sordid story, can someone tell me what the story is with the angle iron? Did he actually use angle iron to stiffen the canard? Steel angle iron?

He's used it a few times for things like improvised brackets or to reinforce parts of the airframe that turned out to flex too much- including once or twice for flight control linkages, for example.

It's understandable to find some inadequacies in a first prototype, and presumably with the second prototype (if and when that day comes), these inadequacies could be designed out for much, much less weight. Part of me want to objectively rationalize the fixes as the byproduct of a very crude first prototype- as long as they don't greatly affect the c.g. and if the sum of their weights is around how much a single person weighs. But-

The frequency and crudity of these angle iron fixes, made with seemingly little regard to added weight, along with other eyebrow-raising "unorthodox" fixes, it's past the point of absurd. It's turned into a running joke.


That's putting it as dryly as possible...

Actually, you want to read the whole sordid story. Great quarantine entertainment. Get a mug of hot chocolate and settle in.

I have an XL-RG with an IO550. Between 6,000-8,000' I cruise at just under 200TAS (usually 198-199) on 13GPH. I have about 1,000nm range (closer to 1,100 at LOP).

Yes the canard and wings will move in turbulence. I don't notice it but I do notice how it smooths out the flight.

Why would you not want one? It's experimental. Some people are uncomfortable with that. It lands fast compared to conventional single engine airplanes. I'm over the numbers at 75 (faster if I'm heavy) and on the ground at 70. You do not want to be at 6'AGL when the canard stalls! So it can use a fair amount of runway to land. I'll never be taking this plane to Cedar Key. I guess those landing speeds are about the same as most twins.

The V-twins are slower. Friend of mine has one with IO-360's. I think he cruises at 170TAS. Someone has installed IO-390's but I don't know if he's flying yet or if he has what he cruises at.

I just realized where Peter got his inspiration for the cooling system!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoHXsuB ... 0#t=52m11s

Yes. Cooling is a challenge with the engine in back. It used to be 1 and 3 were my hot cylinders. But after some adjustments, they're closer to the rest and 2 & 4 are now my hot cylinders.

Besides the angle iron, there is also the lead weight bobs he added in one winglet to even the L/R balance, thinking it might cause the right roll tendency.

yeah, one thing i never thought I'd see, is a weight-shift trike designed to be pressurized