Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Plane Specific Questions Tips, Tricks Area for All Canard Kits and Plans Planes
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:17 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default Cozy/Defiant hybrid

Fellow Canardians,
recent sad events and practical considerations are steering me more and more towards a Cozy/Defiant hybrid (Cozy airframe with minimum modifications, two common rail 95HP turbodiesels in push pull configuration). With my still zero flying experience, planned trips with very long legs over water and the rugged terrain of Greece, I need the twin engine safety margin.
I don't care about short field ops capability, as most of my trips will be either inside Greece, with maximum distances around 300nm, therefore minimum fuel, or international, off big commercial airports, therefore plenty of runway.
I'm thinking of making the front gear fixed (suitably faired and maybe integrated into a Defiant style rhino rudder) thus freeing the nose (standard or most probably slightly elongated) for the second engine.
I'm aware of weight and balance issues, but willing to brave a rigorous test program (with movable ballast etc.) for the added safety later on.
Anyone knowledgeable in X-Plane to run a simulation?
In light of recent FAA directives about ratings needed to fly experimental planes solo and otherwise, is there a separate (simplified?) rating for piloting multi-engine in-line thrust planes?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:28 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

you misunderstand the FAA directive. the issue is type, if the plane you are flying is experimental AND a twin, you need a twin rating to have passengers. if the plane is a water plane, you need a rating to fly passengers in the sea plane, for a regular experimental, single engine, land, under 12,500 lbs and under 200 hp and no retracts or whatever, no other license or rating, just your private, is needed
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:35 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
you misunderstand the FAA directive. the issue is type, if the plane you are flying is experimental AND a twin, you need a twin rating to have passengers.
snipped ...
No Mike, I don't misunderstand the FAA directive, that was exactly the gist of my question, hence the remark "SOLO and otherwise". Maybe I didn't formulate my question clearly enough. OK, according to your answer, I can fly an experimental whatever SOLO, but need the appropriate rating to carry passengers. So, I ask again: is there a special (simplified?) multi-engine in-line thrust rating?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:41 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

Does the FAA have jurisdiction in Greece?
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:49 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarbleTurtle
Does the FAA have jurisdiction in Greece?
When nearing completion of the Cozy III, I'm coming to one of the Florida aviation schools to get my PPL in less than one month at half the cost of what it would cost in Greece (I was quoted EUR 7200 two weeks ago, Athens Aero-Club hourly instruction rates in a Cessna 150, wet, are about EUR 140, EUR 150 for a Cessna 170). The US PPL is then directly convertible to a JAR license.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:55 PM
argoldman argoldman is offline
Rich
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: chicago area
Posts: 481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
No Mike, I don't misunderstand the FAA directive, that was exactly the gist of my question, hence the remark "SOLO and otherwise". Maybe I didn't formulate my question clearly enough. OK, according to your answer, I can fly an experimental whatever SOLO, but need the appropriate rating to carry passengers. So, I ask again: is there a special (simplified?) multi-engine in-line thrust rating?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Yes,

It became popular with the C337

The engine out procedures are completely different. I believe it is called a Centerlind thrust multi, and is simpler. (perhaps that's why more multi pilots got killed in the 337 types than others with an engine out-- they had some ADs for that to be able to identify a dead engine and prevent the subsequent stalls)
__________________
CANARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:55 PM
Wayne Hicks Wayne Hicks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Carrollton, VA
Posts: 1,376
Default

Kumaros:

I don't know the Greek regs, but in the U.S. you can get a multi-engine rating for centerline thrust only. My understanding is the "centerline only" requires fewer hours' training (less $$$) since you don't perform the critical engine-out maneuvers.

Just in case others have muddied the waters, to fly a defiant variant in the US:

1. Solo - no multi-engine rating required. Single Engine Land is good enough.

2. With Passenger(s) -- must have a multi-engine with at least centerline thrust restriction. With conventional multi-engine, you're covered.
__________________
=============
Wayne Hicks, Cozy Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages...cks/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-31-2005, 12:56 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
No Mike, I don't misunderstand the FAA directive, that was exactly the gist of my question, hence the remark "SOLO and otherwise". Maybe I didn't formulate my question clearly enough. OK, according to your answer, I can fly an experimental whatever SOLO, but need the appropriate rating to carry passengers. So, I ask again: is there a special (simplified?) multi-engine in-line thrust rating?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
you can fly an experimental whatever with passengers as long as that plane configuration in a certificated state does not require additional ratings.

yes, there is an in line twin rating, more like a restriction, if all you learn on is an in line twin, then that is the type of twin you are restricted to fly in.
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:07 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Thank you all, that was the answer I was hoping for. Type rating or restriction, I don't care, as long as it's simpler, cheaper, quicker. I "canardly" see myself driving a conventional, assymmetric thrust twin, anyway. Does anyone know of any aviation schools offering instruction in a Cessna 337? How many extra hours on top of the regular PPL are we talking about?
Now, how about the X-Plane request?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:10 PM
Aaron Aaron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 113
Default

Sounds like a fun project, but why not just go 100% defiant? What would you gain by trying to merge the cozy with the defiant?

another option is to do the venezuelan special:


both engines in the back, turning coaxial shafts.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:30 PM
adouglas's Avatar
adouglas adouglas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Sounds like a fun project, but why not just go 100% defiant? What would you gain by trying to merge the cozy with the defiant?
You mean aside from the fact that he just bought a Cozy III project?

That's a mightily ambitious plan you've got there. Best of luck with it!
__________________
=====
Not started yet, maybe never will (currently having an affair with an RV project...shhh...don't tell my set of Cozy plans)....

MORE COWBELL!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-31-2005, 01:39 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Sounds like a fun project, but why not just go 100% defiant? What would you gain by trying to merge the cozy with the defiant?
The Defiant has too much structure to support two big (IO-320 or IO-360 I believe) vibrating aviation engines and the fuel to satisfy their thirst. I'm planning on two Mitsubishi (time for the Zero to rise from the Dust , Mike please excuse the quip) 95HP 1.5 liter (93 cubic inch) common rail turbo-diesels, each sipping diesel at about 3 gallons per hour at cruise altitude and speed. A Cozy with 190HP burning 6 gallons of diesel per hour sounds much better than a Defiant needing about 20 gallons of avgas per hour, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
another option is to do the venezuelan special:


both engines in the back, turning coaxial shafts.
I know about the Leon brothers Cozy, but as far as I'm concerned that solution would complicate fitting two non-standard engines in a standard cowling, while still being tail-heavy. Then there is the whole coaxial shafts turning counter-rotating propellers thing; too complicated for a non-engineer like me.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-31-2005, 02:39 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Welll, the most dangerous time to lose an engine is on take off, sooooooooooo, what you gonna do with 95 hp, and i don't think fly will be possible, when you lose an engine on takeoff. i know of a defiant who lost one and went into the trees, fortunately he is still with us.

the mods to add a firewall on the front of your cozy 3 will be quite a challenge.

how much do these engines weigh?

why not talk to the canard flyer who put two close to each other and find out what the single engine performance was like, from a controllability standpoint

I think that the V minimum controllable single engine speed will be quite low, as the engines are closet to the center of the plane than a standard twin. Also, just in case - i would make the rudders bigger.
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:23 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
Welll, the most dangerous time to lose an engine is on take off, sooooooooooo, what you gonna do with 95 hp, and i don't think fly will be possible, when you lose an engine on takeoff. i know of a defiant who lost one and went into the trees, fortunately he is still with us.
Mike, I'm less concerned with take off, as the Athens Aero-Club is operating off a military airport at the outskirts of Athens with runways in excess of 5000 ft, leaving plenty of room for landing again. For international flights I'd take off from international airports with customs, passport checking and such stuff, and runways around 10 thousand feet. I'm rather concerned with flights to the Greek islands initially, with longish legs over water and nowhere to land on the smaller of the islands, followed by flights to Egypt or Cyprus, crossing half the Mediterranean, followed (who knows if and when) by flights to the US over the Atlantic, meaning 1000 nm legs over water. That's where a second engine is indispensable as a safety aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
the mods to add a firewall on the front of your cozy 3 will be quite a challenge.
I know, that's why I may go single aft engine for the first one or two years, while gathering experience and flight hours around Greece, then convert to twin centerline thrust for the longer international flights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
how much do these engines weigh?
About 120 kg (~265 lbs.) each. Admittedly heavyish, but they make up for it by being very frugal in fuel burn. You can easily save about 20 out of 52 gallons of fuel in comparison to an aviation engine (20 gallons are what? about 120 lbs. of fuel?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
why not talk to the canard flyer who put two close to each other and find out what the single engine performance was like, from a controllability standpoint
I have seen pics of the twin Jabiru Long-EZ. Boxer configuration engines, like the Jabirus, fit better in the wing profile than 3 cyl. upright in-line turbodiesels. Don't forget that assymmetric thrust would open the multi-engine rating can of worms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
I think that the V minimum controllable single engine speed will be quite low, as the engines are closet to the center of the plane than a standard twin. Also, just in case - i would make the rudders bigger.
Mike, please don't forget the rhino rudder.
As I said, I'm more interested in the twin engine configuration as an insurance over long legs over water, swimming half the Mediterranean or half the Atlantic hardly appeals to me.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:25 PM
JohnZ JohnZ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 147
Default Twin Suzuki's???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Sounds like a fun project, but why not just go 100% defiant? What would you gain by trying to merge the cozy with the defiant?

another option is to do the venezuelan special:


both engines in the back, turning coaxial shafts.

Anyone have the link to their website???? I think these are twin Suzuki's 100hp ea. Wasn't there a story on this AC at one time?

JohnZ
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.