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
  #16  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:42 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 JohnZ
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
Here's the Sport Aviation article:
http://www.infortel.com/cozy/article_english.htm
Please note, I'm not in any way knocking the Leon brothers' accomplishment, quite the contrary, they are my heroes. They took what at the time was the best engine available to them and made it fit their needs, which closely resemble mine. It's just that in the almost ten years that have passed since then, common-rail turbodiesels have progressed in leaps and bounds, making them the better engine for the time being. In ten years time, who knows? we may all be flying hydrogen fuel cell or particle accellerator powered planes.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-31-2005, 03:53 PM
Aaron Aaron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZ
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
http://www.infortel.com/cozy

there's a link to a write up in Sport Aviation there as well.

As for the "Coziant" concept- I'm a bit skeptical, but I hope Kumaros pushes forward with his ideas. the O-320 engines are about 350lbs I think, sounds like your engines will be similar in weight when liquid cooling is added.

So given that your engines are as heavy and presumably as big as those in a defiant, what makes you think you could get away with less structure than in the defiant? Burt is not known for putting superfluous structure in his planes.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-31-2005, 04:18 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
snipped...
As for the "Coziant" concept
I prefer Defcon III.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
the O-320 engines are about 350lbs I think, sounds like your engines will be similar in weight when liquid cooling is added.

So given that your engines are as heavy and presumably as big as those in a defiant, what makes you think you could get away with less structure than in the defiant? Burt is not known for putting superfluous structure in his planes.
Aaron, you are comparing 50 years old technology and metallurgy, see recent Lycoming crankshaft fiasco, 320 or 360 cubic inch, vibrating, shaking, airframe-stressing, notoriously fuel inefficient avgas engines, with 1.5 year old, best of German and Japanese technology, 93 cubic inch, counterbalanced, smooth as silk, super efficient diesel engines. Even if the all up weight of the engines comes out to about the same, you still have the fuel weight savings. Please don't forget that the 95 horsepower figure is in standard automobile form. All turbodiesels lend themselves to short-term overboosting and/or extra fuel injection, with horsepower gains in the range of about twenty percent; excellent for take off or emergencies.
Burt designed these planes about twenty years ago with technology available at the time. In the Voyager, for example, he chose a liquid-cooled engine for long-term efficient running, leaving the inefficient air-cooled engine only for extra take off thrust.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:45 PM
JonC's Avatar
JonC JonC is offline
LEz - N555LE Q - N555QA
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 997
Default

I'm not sure it would be a weight and balance "issue". I believe it just plain would not work out. You are talking about hanging 200+lbs off the nose of the plane. IIRC a Cozy has around a 400lb front seat limit, which you have effectively cut down to below 150lbs or so by throwing an engine on the nose (remember, 200lbs at the nose will equal more at the front seats due to the arm component) In theory you could balance it out by moving the rear engine further back, however then you run into striking the prop on the ground when you try to take off.

I like the idea, but the Cozy was just not designed for that type of modification... it could be done just like a pressurizied Cozy could, however it would take a major redesign. By which time you could have built a defiant.
__________________
~Nathan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-31-2005, 05:53 PM
Aaron Aaron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Aaron, you are comparing 50 years old technology and metallurgy, see recent Lycoming crankshaft fiasco, 320 or 360 cubic inch, vibrating, shaking, airframe-stressing, notoriously fuel inefficient avgas engines, with 1.5 year old, best of German and Japanese technology, 93 cubic inch, counterbalanced, smooth as silk, super efficient diesel engines.
Kumaros, I'm fully familiar with the Lycosaurus/alternative engine debate , that wasn't my point. If you search on my name you'll discover I'm one of those rotary dreamer-freaks, so you're preaching to the choir as they say over here

My point is he designed the airframe for ~350lbs of engine up front, and ~350 in the back. You will also have 350 in front, 350 in back. Granted you won't need all 110 gallons of fuel- 60 will do fine. It's not only weight here, its the distance from that weight to the cg. Starting from a Cozy, you'll still need to change the fuselage to hang that big hunk of iron up front- and then change the canard and wings I'd imagine. but I'm no expert.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-31-2005, 06:45 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

If you did a twin pusher like this... maybe you could get the engines close enough to the C of G to not need a front rear arrangement.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	twin.jpg
Views:	69
Size:	18.2 KB
ID:	1040  
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-31-2005, 07:02 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default

JohnC and Aaron, I'm beginning to think you are right in that the Mitsubishi 1.5 liter 95HP may be too much of an engine for the Defcon III, at least forward. Of course, by sacrificing standardization, one could use two different engines, a Fiat Multijet 1.25 liter 70HP in front and a Mitsubishi 1.5 liter 95HP aft, or even two of the Fiat engines, fore and aft, "chipped" to something like 90HP, with both radiators, batteries etc. in the back. As for fuel, Aaron, instead of 60 gallons, try to imagine something like 30, which should give a range of about a thousand miles. I wish my bladder had the endurance to match
Why use ballast, when you can have a second engine up front.
Anyway, at this point it's all theoretical and depending upon what becomes available on the used car market after the next winter of autobahn, autostrada, autoroute etc. pileups. Thinking "smaller", one has the advantage of both greater numbers and lower prices, thereby making it easy to find multiple examples of the desired engine, even stocking up for future replacements.
Oh how I wish Daihatsu/Toyota would get on with it, and instead of only showcasing their 2-stroke diesel technology at all major auto-shows, they would put their concept engines into series production:
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/to...eco/index.html
In this case it's a 40 cubic inch 2-stroke diesel producing 50HP, with fuel efficiency in a car far surpassing 100mpg.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 05-31-2005 at 07:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-31-2005, 07:10 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
If you did a twin pusher like this... maybe you could get the engines close enough to the C of G to not need a front rear arrangement.
MT, we did talk about it a couple of posts ago, but 1) I don't like Jabirus, to me they are just better Lycomings, while retaining most of their disadvantages, i.e. expensive avgas or mogas, air-cooled thus thirsty, etc. 2) there is still an amount, however small, of assymmetric thrust, thereby making a multi-engine rating necessary. I'm talking about upright in-line engines, which do not lend themselves to integration into a wing.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-31-2005, 09:07 PM
adouglas's Avatar
adouglas adouglas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
too complicated for a non-engineer like me.
So let me get this straight.... figuring out the drive hardware is too complicated (even though you have an flying example to guide you), but

1) Installing engines that nobody's ever used in a Cozy before (have they ever been used in ANY aircraft?)
2) Doing the structural engineering needed to accommodate an extra engine were it was never meant to be
3) Doing the aeronautical engineering needed to account for a radically different airframe configuration (ever notice how big the canard on a Defiant is? A Defiant is not just a double-sized LongEZ with an extra engine)
4) Working out the complexities of all those systems

ISN'T too complicated?

I mean, 10 out of 10 for ambition, but are you REALLY confident that you're going to be able to accomplish this in a safe manner?

Isn't the introduction of so many unknowns going to introduce more risk than the addition of the second engine will alleviate?

It might prove instructive to find out what the backgrounds of those who have undertaken such radical modifications is. When they undertook those projects, were they more experienced or better trained than you are?

I know nothing about the builders who added extra engines to their canards...whether those airplanes were their first projects, or whether they're engineers. I do recall that Nat built at least one or maybe two airplanes strictly per plans before he built the original Cozy. He has said IIRC that it's wise to build the first airplane per plans, then use what you've learned to modify the next one.

My point, such as it is, is that it's a big enough task just to build an airplane in the first place. Attempting a radical redesign when you haven't built anything yet is a HUGE undertaking, it seems to me. If you're up to the challenge, then more power to you!

The poet said that a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Bravo for thinking big. I hope your dreams survive the inevitable encounter with reality.
__________________
=====
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
  #25  
Old 05-31-2005, 09:50 PM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Why use ballast, when you can have a second engine up front.
I weigh 145 lb. I use 47 lb. of ballast in the nose when flying solo, which puts me on the extreme rear end of the CG range. If I have someone that weighs more than 100 lb. in the front seat with me, I remove all the ballast and am still within the CG range. I can take up to 300 lb. of copilot in the front seat with me, and still be within the CG range (with no ballast). Ballast, at approximately FS-5, is about 2.5 times as far away from the approved CG range as front seat weight, at FS-59.

Give all this, unless your front engine weighs less than 130 lb or you weigh a LOT less than I do, you will have exactly ZERO extra front seat capacity for a passenger. If you weigh 200 lb, your maximum engine weight drops to about 108 lb. (Still with no extra front seat capacity other than you).

Unless you magically determine how to get a LOT more lift from the canard without changing the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft, or unless you can magically find an engine with a 1:1 HP/Weight ratio (and are willing to have NO front seat capacity other than you, the pilot), you really should think about rearranging your configuration desires, or build a Defiant.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-31-2005, 09:54 PM
mplafleur's Avatar
mplafleur mplafleur is offline
Finally at Chapter 4!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lathrup Village, MI (Metro Detroit)
Posts: 1,203
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.
In a twin, the second engine is only there to get you to the accident site.
__________________
Michael LaFleur
Turbo Rotary Big EZ Retract
And no trees were harmed or killed in the creating and sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...
http://banners.wunderground.com/weat...ions/76225.gif
http://banners.wunderground.com/weat...ions/76225.gif
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-31-2005, 10:04 PM
Wayne Hicks Wayne Hicks is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Carrollton, VA
Posts: 1,376
Default

The canard on the Defiant is 24 FEET LONG and very, very wide! All of it is needed to lift the pilots and the front engine. And BTW, I understood the Defiant could take off on one engine, but I'll make an attempt to verify that. Despite its lack of top speed, it's quite the performer.
__________________
=============
Wayne Hicks, Cozy Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages...cks/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-31-2005, 11:16 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
MT, we did talk about it a couple of posts ago, but 1) I don't like Jabirus, to me they are just better Lycomings, while retaining most of their disadvantages, i.e. expensive avgas or mogas, air-cooled thus thirsty, etc. 2) there is still an amount, however small, of assymmetric thrust, thereby making a multi-engine rating necessary. I'm talking about upright in-line engines, which do not lend themselves to integration into a wing.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
I don't mean to jump on your case, but...

There is simply no way to hang an engine on the front and rear of a Cozy and go flying. Are you really serious?

Do you really want to fly a twin, but not take a multi-engine course (regardless if it is required)? If you can afford a twin, you ought to be able to afford a multi rating, and an IFR ticket. Who wouldn't take this (or any) extra training if they could afford it?

The twin Jabiru install seems like (relatively speaking) the best way to build a 4-seat experimental twin. Jabirus aren't bad engines, there would be two of them, and you could have fuel flows at half the rate of a Defiant at the same Defiant speeds. I'd like to see the finances of a pilot who realistically would be able to afford to build a twin, but would be hurt by the price difference between diesel and avgas (European prices withstanding).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-01-2005, 01:48 AM
JonC's Avatar
JonC JonC is offline
LEz - N555LE Q - N555QA
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
MT, we did talk about it a couple of posts ago, but 1) I don't like Jabirus, to me they are just better Lycomings, while retaining most of their disadvantages, i.e. expensive avgas or mogas, air-cooled thus thirsty, etc. 2) there is still an amount, however small, of assymmetric thrust, thereby making a multi-engine rating necessary. I'm talking about upright in-line engines, which do not lend themselves to integration into a wing.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
You should take the ME rating course anyways, there is a lot to learn about flying a twin, even a centerline thrust. People seem to have this misconception that a twin has more safety, which is far from the truth. Most of the time at the altitude that you would cruise at you will lose altitude when you lose an engine, you no longer have the power to maintain the altitude. If you lose one on takeoff it is still a big issue, you lose a huge amount of climb performance (think less than a C150 on a hot day), same thing for a single engine go-around. This is all assuming that the engines you choose have enough power to pull the plane on their own.

Twins are not meant to fly on one engine, they are only meant to crash slower
__________________
~Nathan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-01-2005, 02:32 AM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default Constructive criticism

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your comments, positive or negative I don't mind, as long as it's constructive criticism. Unwelcome are gratuitous platitudes of the type: "the second engine is there to take you to the crash site". Come on people, I expect better from my fellow Canardians.
Please, let me state one more time: I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, just a technically minded translator and lurker for decades on the aviation magazines and the last decade on the internet front.
In my initial post, I specifically asked for the help of people more knowledgeable than I, especially for an X-Plane simulation. I may have to go to the other forum after all, where I think the X-Plane programmer hangs out sometimes.
Again in my initial post I may have over-simplified things a bit, and yes, changes to the Cozy may have to be somewhat significant, certainly a larger canard, a fixed front gear to free the larger and/or longer nose for the second engine, etc., but always peripheral, not to the main fuselage itself. Do keep in mind, however, that changing one parameter affects the whole in ways proportionate or otherwise. Hanging two huge displacement aviation engines at both elongated ends of the Defiant, with their commensurate thirst for fuel, dictates strong, vibration resistant structures, huge fuel tanks etc., and lift to match, it's a vicious circle. A way out of this vicious circle is with two smaller, closer coupled engines, sipping fuel at 3 gallons an hour. In automobile terms, I'm talking Toyota MR-S, or even better Lotus with Hayabusa engine, you are talking Chevrolet Corvette. Most people on this forum would be happy with a finished Cozy MKIV for US$ 45k, I have spent about US$ 8k on the Cozy III project, plus about US$ 3 to 5k for TWO 1.5 liter turbo-diesels yet to find, plus a couple of thousand dollars for basic avionics, that's all, a total budget of about US$ 15k, for a proposed twin. That's all I can afford on a yearly income of about US$ 40k, for those who wondered. Things may improve with the completion of my house project and incoming rent, but not much, because by then I'll be cutting back on work, initially to build the plane and then to fly it. As for multi-engine instruction, why spend hard earned money and effort on something totally useless to me, learning for example how to respond to engine failure in assymmetric thrust spam cans?
If you go to old issues of the Canard Pusher, you'll see all kinds of suggestions to make the Defiant safer and/or easier to fly, such as shortening the main gear, reflexing the ailerons etc. Nat did experiment with canard length for the Cozy until being satisfied with deep stall resistance. There's nothing cut and dried, not if you are willing to spend the time and effort to test it exhaustively before hanging your butt from it.
I know twins are generally underpowered on one engine, the saying, however, that the second engine is there only to take you to the crash site, is just not true. It may be true in marginal take off situations, short runways, aircraft at maximum gross, bad density-altitude situations, where you are screwed anyway. It certainly isn't true in long legs over rugged terrain or even worse over water, where a second engine, even with some significant altitude and speed degradation may mean the difference between reaching land and swimming for hundreds of miles, whereas a long swim in the Mediterranean in the summer may be tollerable, but I wouldn't want to try wading water in the middle of the Atlantic.
Now, to go back to the original question, anyone for an X-Plane simulation?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 06-01-2005 at 07:51 AM.
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 11:01 AM.


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