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
  #46  
Old 06-02-2005, 11:58 AM
argoldman argoldman is offline
Rich
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: chicago area
Posts: 481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Come to think of it, a JATO bottle strapped to the fuselage Wile E. Coyote fashion, would be good insurance against an engine out during take off, at least during the first 40 hours. John Slade are you listening?
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
That arrangement, however, never works out well for Wilie!
__________________
CANARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-02-2005, 12:21 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Quote:
John Slade are you listening?
Er.... no.

Kumaros. While I'm happy to see the envelope expanded, and I don't want to quash this interesting discussion, I really think you're heading in the wrong direction here.

Instead of figuring out how to maintain level flight when your engine quits, why not direct your efforts into making sure it doesn't.

Modern engines are good for 100,000 miles plus so long as you keep giving them fuel, oil and coolant. Get a new engine. Do frequent oil changes, borascope inspections and compression tests. Single engine airplanes fly across the Atlantic regularly - even Lycomings.

Putting 1 non-standard engine on the plans firewall is more than enough challenge for a non-engineer. I say, Finnish the Cozy III per plans, install ONE good engine and look after it like your life depended on it. You'll be flying in no time compared with trying to redesign the plane as a twin, you'll build confidence in the engine gradually, and in the long term you'll probably be safer.

Just wanted to wave the common sense flag.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.....
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-02-2005, 12:53 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karoliina
About dual engines in the defiant style, have anybody though yet another option that wasn't discussed below. Of course the front
engine will eat up the front seat space. But what if one builds
the plane differently by moving the front seat backwards and perhaps
compromising the back seat (e.g. for a storage space without seats).
Now the Cozy has the front seat in front of the CG. How about putting
the crew nearly at CG and placing a engine to the front.
This plane has been built, it was/(is?) called the "Gemini." The plane is described in Downie's book on Rutan aircraft. I think the plane was also profiled in Popular Mechanics back in the 80's. Basically, a Cozy III sized plane with old aircooled VW engines front and rear. Rutan provided some assistance with design, but I don't think that the design was ever satisfactorily tweaked out (control loads, roll rates, etc). Somewhere I've read that the plane still exists, with 0-200s on it.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-02-2005, 01:39 PM
argoldman argoldman is offline
Rich
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: chicago area
Posts: 481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Slade
Er.... no.

..., install ONE good engine and look after it like your life depended on it. You'll be flying in no time compared with trying to redesign the plane as a twin, you'll build confidence in the engine gradually, and in the long term you'll probably be safer.

Just wanted to wave the common sense flag.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.....

The CZ III has enough room for a good raft, rations etc. Fly with a flotation vest of some kind on (the ones for sailing are incredibly small when uninflated).

Having sailed through some of the greek islands, I can think of fewer waters that I would rather be, if, I had to ditch.

Remember the cozy will probably float!
__________________
CANARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-02-2005, 02:41 PM
Waiter's Avatar
Waiter Waiter is offline
LongEZ-RG
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwestern Ohio
Posts: 1,096
Default

Quote:
I can think of fewer waters that I would rather be, if, I had to ditch
All the more reason for the most reliable airframe/engine combination that can be achieved.

Waiter
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-02-2005, 03:21 PM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Karoliina, please see my post to Aaron. As stated there, all major European aviation magazines are full of ads by Florida and California flight schools offering 40-50 hours in 20 to 25 days training programs for a PPL. I can scan and e-mail you a couple of pages of the "Flieger" magazine, I subscribe to.
I don't doubt that they can teach, but the question is can you learn
in that time. In Finland maximum flight training per day is 1.5 hours. And that is for reason, additional time just increases errors and nothing is really learned. Also remember that if you have tough luck, you'll be waiting rains go away or winds to calm down and you can waste weeks for that alone,
VFR flight rules regulate your quality flight time quite seriously, no matter what country you are flying at. Also it is not a good learning experience
to start from strong crosswinds. Before you get used to flying, it is not
recommended to fly on windy condition. Later it will be ok, but not at
the beginning. After getting your license, it will take some time before you can claim to be a pro. Everybody always underestimates the effort.
Maybe 500-1000 landings and you are fine.

Best wishes,
Karoliina
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-02-2005, 03:36 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 karoliina
I don't doubt that they can teach, but the question is can you learn
in that time. In Finland maximum flight training per day is 1.5 hours. And that is for reason, additional time just increases errors and nothing is really learned.
Karoliina, you would be right for an average total newbie, please don't forget, however, that PPL candidates who go to these schools are highly motivated people who have been lurkers for half their life, absorbing all the knowledge they can get, have flown their favorite aircraft for endless hours on various simulators, etc. I'm not saying simulator time can make for actual flying experience, but it sure does help. Cozy, with its joystick controls, lends itself wonderfully to simulator training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by karoliina
Also remember that if you have tough luck, you'll be waiting rains go away or winds to calm down and you can waste weeks for that alone,
VFR flight rules regulate your quality flight time quite seriously, no matter what country you are flying at.
snipped ...
That's why these schools are located in Florida or California, good weather almost guaranteed, except in hurricane season of course.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 06-02-2005 at 05:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-02-2005, 07:04 PM
rutanfan rutanfan is offline
Ray V.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Logan, Utah
Posts: 229
Default

Kumaros. I used to live in Europe, and can appreciate your desire to acquire a practical diesel alternative to the Lycoming/Continental aircraft engine. If I were in your situation I would do exactly the same, as the high cost of leaded avgas would most likely double the total cost including build over the first 1,000 hrs (just a guess.)

So I have been following your progress with some interest, as I anticipate a similar situation in the not so distant US future. You have made two statements however, that I respectfully disagree. One is that the diesel is more reliable. This in itself, may be a factual statement, however I suggest reading the book ‘Kitplane Construction’ by Ronald Wanttaja. In it, he cites a scientific survey, which finds the Lycoming & Continental to be vastly more reliable than their auto conversion counterparts. If my memory serves me correctly, Rotax and Jabiru were respective runner-ups. I could substantiate this with several EAA studies.

I find no irony that engines designed and manufactured for aviation installation, with proven installation specific track records, are more reliable than auto conversions. This is not to say that the engine itself is less reliable, but the specific installation is prone to more unknowns. For example the late Paul Conner’s vapor lock issue with his mid firewall fuel pump installation (I’m not insinuating this was an issue with his final and fatal flight, as he corrected the issue. But only mention it because we are all familiar with it.)

Secondly, you also mention that the Diesel is more efficient than the Lycoming & Continental. To my knowledge there is no more efficient piston/aircraft engine than the electronic fuel injected Continental that Dick Rutan used in the Voyager 10+ years ago.
__________________
I think; therefore I am. - Rene Descartes
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-02-2005, 07:32 PM
swinn swinn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 76
Default

On the training issue, I obtained my license about 5 years ago here in San Diego. Finding a day you couldn't fly was pretty hard, it is nearly the same in Florida (with more humidity). The cessnas are easy to fly, and the written tests are predictable if not memorizable. As with most government tests, all 700 possible questions are freely available with the correct answers for anyone to review and study. A three day class can get a motivated individual past the written with a 90%+ grade. The flying part depends on the person, some can do it in the required 40, but many do better with 50-60.

I have talked to foreign students at the airfield who sometimes become frustrated at the additional time it is taking for them to get their license. I talked to one woman (scandinavian I think) who had 95 hours and her school wouldn't let her take the check ride to get her license because they said she wasn't ready. I've talked to several others in similar circumstances, but with fewer hours. Be careful about the school you choose from what I have seen, there may be some 'artistic license' taken with respect to when the student is 'ready'. I would very seriously consider making arrangements to fly with a private instructor at least once or twice in the last two weeks of my visit to get a second opinion even if everything was going well.

There is a school here in my local airport (Ramona airport RNM) skyline flight academy (I am not affiliated with them) that offers training programs of the type that you describe. They offer 50 hours, and claim 6-10 weeks which sounds very reasonable. THey also have a multi rating for a fairly reasonable price and expectations. Kumaros come to San Diego for training and I'll show you around (an air tour?).

--Scott
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-02-2005, 07:38 PM
PeteK's Avatar
PeteK PeteK is offline
Cozy MkIV builder
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rutanfan
Kumaros. I used to live in Europe, and can appreciate your desire to acquire a practical diesel alternative to the Lycoming/Continental aircraft engine. If I were in your situation I would do exactly the same, as the high cost of leaded avgas would most likely double the total cost including build over the first 1,000 hrs (just a guess.)

So I have been following your progress with some interest, as I anticipate a similar situation in the not so distant US future. You have made two statements however, that I respectfully disagree. One is that the diesel is more reliable. This in itself, may be a factual statement, however I suggest reading the book ‘Kitplane Construction’ by Ronald Wanttaja. In it, he cites a scientific survey, which finds the Lycoming & Continental to be vastly more reliable than their auto conversion counterparts. If my memory serves me correctly, Rotax and Jabiru were respective runner-ups. I could substantiate this with several EAA studies.

I find no irony that engines designed and manufactured for aviation installation, with proven installation specific track records, are more reliable than auto conversions. This is not to say that the engine itself is less reliable, but the specific installation is prone to more unknowns. For example the late Paul Conner’s vapor lock issue with his mid firewall fuel pump installation (I’m not insinuating this was an issue with his final and fatal flight, as he corrected the issue. But only mention it because we are all familiar with it.)

Secondly, you also mention that the Diesel is more efficient than the Lycoming & Continental. To my knowledge there is no more efficient piston/aircraft engine than the electronic fuel injected Continental that Dick Rutan used in the Voyager 10+ years ago.

Diesel contains more BTU's per gallon, and is thus more weight-efficient - you CAN go longer per gallon that gasoline. Rutan's decision was likely based on the fact that there was no viable diesel engine available for the mission.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-02-2005, 08:44 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 argoldman
snipped ...
Remember the cozy will probably float!
Rich, I remember an ad, for Ellison throttle bodies ?, from the late eighties - early nineties, featuring a ditched EZ type aircraft, and the pilot fishing.
OK, on your say so, next time I'll remember to put my fishing vest on
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-02-2005, 09:11 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 John Slade
Modern engines are good for 100,000 miles plus so long as you keep giving them fuel, oil and coolant. Get a new engine. Do frequent oil changes, borascope inspections and compression tests. Single engine airplanes fly across the Atlantic regularly - even Lycomings.
snipped ...
John, you are absolutely right of course, but do allow a newbie some dreaming space, OK?
In spite of all the bold talk and speculations, I'll probably follow the conventional route too, at least in the beginning. The Mitsubishi engine is but a season old, the Toyota one just now coming online. It's going to be some time before they become widely available on the used car market. I'll grab the next best (diesel) alternative to appear on the market and go flying, collecting hours and experience locally. A couple of years later, when I'll be confident enough to venture abroad, over those big bodies of water, I'll spend a winter retrofitting the engine(s) of my choice.
I know single engine airplanes brave the Atlantic, I may even do it too with a diesel, I'd never do it with an avgas engine though, too many failure modes for my liking.
John, keep up the good work, fly off your forty hours, and when I'll come to Florida for my PPL, hopefully some time nexty year, I'd be honored to go for the proverbial hundred dollar burger, or a thousand dollar visit to the grandchildren with you, avgas (pfui) or more probably mogas on me of course
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-02-2005, 09:20 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 swinn
snipped ... Kumaros come to San Diego for training and I'll show you around (an air tour?).

--Scott
Thank you Scott, I'll probably go to Florida for my PPL, easier access from Europe, but I'll be certain to visit, if I'm ever in California. You are welcome to come flying with me too, hopefully in a year or so.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-02-2005, 09:51 PM
argoldman argoldman is offline
Rich
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: chicago area
Posts: 481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumaros
Rich, I remember an ad, for Ellison throttle bodies ?, from the late eighties - early nineties, featuring a ditched EZ type aircraft, and the pilot fishing.
OK, on your say so, next time I'll remember to put my fishing vest on
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

That's reeley great
__________________
CANARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF
Rich
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-02-2005, 09:58 PM
Kumaros's Avatar
Kumaros Kumaros is offline
It's all Greek to me
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 805
Default Doing the Math

Quote:
Originally Posted by rutanfan
Kumaros. I used to live in Europe, and can appreciate your desire to acquire a practical diesel alternative to the Lycoming/Continental aircraft engine. If I were in your situation I would do exactly the same, as the high cost of leaded avgas would most likely double the total cost including build over the first 1,000 hrs (just a guess.)
Ray, lets do the math: the average (auto) diesel is 30% more efficient than the average (auto) gas engine, the average liquid cooled auto engine is again another 10 to 30% more efficient than an air-cooled aviation engine. Let's agree on a conservative 40% advantage of diesel against "aviation" engines. Then we have the price difference of avgas at around 8 dollars per gallon in Europe versus 2 dollars per gallon for diesel or Jet-A. In a 1,000 hours, your average Lycoming IO-360 would use about 10,000 gallons of avgas at a cost of US$80,000, the 180 HP diesel would use about 6,000 gallons of diesel at a cost of US12,000. This almost seven to one cost ratio means that someone like me, with an annual income of about US$40k, could never realistically expect to fly on avgas, just barely the five or ten hours a year to keep current. How much would you fly, if it would cost you 80 bucks an hour, just for gas, even given your higher incomes in the USA?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rutanfan
So I have been following your progress with some interest, as I anticipate a similar situation in the not so distant US future. You have made two statements however, that I respectfully disagree. One is that the diesel is more reliable. This in itself, may be a factual statement, however I suggest reading the book ‘Kitplane Construction’ by Ronald Wanttaja. In it, he cites a scientific survey, which finds the Lycoming & Continental to be vastly more reliable than their auto conversion counterparts. If my memory serves me correctly, Rotax and Jabiru were respective runner-ups. I could substantiate this with several EAA studies.

I find no irony that engines designed and manufactured for aviation installation, with proven installation specific track records, are more reliable than auto conversions. This is not to say that the engine itself is less reliable, but the specific installation is prone to more unknowns. For example the late Paul Conner’s vapor lock issue with his mid firewall fuel pump installation (I’m not insinuating this was an issue with his final and fatal flight, as he corrected the issue. But only mention it because we are all familiar with it.)

Secondly, you also mention that the Diesel is more efficient than the Lycoming & Continental. To my knowledge there is no more efficient piston/aircraft engine than the electronic fuel injected Continental that Dick Rutan used in the Voyager 10+ years ago.
Ray, you and Ron Wanttaja are absolutely right as regards "aviation" engines versus auto-conversions. The various ancillaries, cooling, electrics etc. are a big source of failures in auto-conversions. The fact remains, however, that diesels are inherently more reliable than gas engines, no carb icing, no vapor lock, no fouled plugs, no high tension leaking or arcing, etc. etc. Take a first generation diesel, give it air and fuel and it'll turn for an eternity. It only needs air and fuel, no spark, no dependence on those pesky little electrons, nothing. It's a different story with our modern common-rail turbodiesels, they are as electricity dependent as the next fuel injected gas engine.
As for the superior efficiency of diesel engines, it's a well established fact, having to do with the higher pressures they operate, the higher calorific content of diesel, the ability to run on extremely lean mixtures, no throttling effect etc. I'm sure Burt used the liquid cooled Continental because that was the best available at that time; given present day options, I think he would have gone for the Thielert Centurion.
Kumaros
It's all Greek to me

Last edited by Kumaros : 06-03-2005 at 01:26 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 05:59 AM.


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