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
  #31  
Old 07-29-2004, 09:58 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

How about this...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	jetcruzer500.gif
Views:	132
Size:	45.4 KB
ID:	235  
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-29-2004, 10:09 PM
Pilot E Pilot E is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: 6P3
Posts: 108
Default

Yea, well - they cancelled that plane's development because it didn't meet performance targets. Not sure if that means it was a bad plane, or just not commercially viable. Maybe you could get the plans cheap... of course iirc its a carbon plane and was cooked in an autoclave... might be a little far from Rutan's moldless construction.

The company took its cash and bought Mooney.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-29-2004, 10:36 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 Wapati8
On the fuel consumption issue… You can run a rotary very lean in cruise. I am also enlarging the airplane 33%. Wouldn’t the fuel capacity increase as well?---Mike
Well, the long and cozy share the main wing and the cozy canard is SMALLER.

the strake goes from the body to the leading edge of the wing, i don't think that shape is going to increase like you will need for the fuel consumption you are going to need

From what you are saying you are doubling the inside dimensions of the fuselodge. we now have 4 little seats and you are thinking of 6 roomier seats and a baggage area. BIG CHANGES

Your fuel consumption will be at least double a standard cozy

The wide EZ squodron is doing a major change, adding three inches in width, in my shop, but they will pay slightly in performance. I like the idea of 3", you NEED turbotag to do a redesign, you have a chance at it then, slim at best. Sorry turbotag, no offence intended, it is just a fact that most don't complete, let alone those that redesign the whole plane, heh heh heh.

This is not a simple space addition you are contemplating, this is a HUGE redisign.
__________________
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
  #34  
Old 07-29-2004, 11:58 PM
Steve parkins's Avatar
Steve parkins Steve parkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wa state
Posts: 2,163
Default a small step for man....

a big seat (er) for us
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sexy 6 rear.jpg
Views:	123
Size:	19.3 KB
ID:	236  
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-30-2004, 12:04 AM
CBarber's Avatar
CBarber CBarber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 802
Default

Dagblast it Wilbur and Orville, stop playing in the sand. Youan's a'nt never gonna get that contraption off the ground. Stop that foolishness


hee hee hee
__________________
Chris Barber
www.LoneStarVelocity.com
Houston, Texas
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-30-2004, 01:15 AM
Steve parkins's Avatar
Steve parkins Steve parkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wa state
Posts: 2,163
Default i did it

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBarber
Dagblast it Wilbur and Orville, stop playing in the sand. Youan's a'nt never gonna get that contraption off the ground. Stop that foolishness


hee hee hee
ok in the plans u first need to build a seat,then u cut it,add 3'....What is the big deal. 1 done, 8000 to go,now all i need is a dar to sign it off



he he he
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMGA0666.JPG
Views:	82
Size:	26.1 KB
ID:	237  Click image for larger version

Name:	cozy to sexy vi.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	63.1 KB
ID:	238  
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-30-2004, 04:55 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

I love that pic you did Steve!
The increase in sizing of the wing and strakes should go a long way towards increasing the fuel capacity. One of the important factors to consider in a craft of a somewhat larger size than the CozyIV (and let's face it, to fit an extra 2 seats in, it's going to end up with a craft nearly twice the size of the baseline) is the shift in CG along with fuel burn. One thing you want to avoid at any cost is the CG moving aft to any large degree as the fuel load lightens, espescially under full load conditions.
So using Mr Parkins' excellent drawing as a reference, I'd be lengthening the strakes forward, along with increasing their relative span, trying to get as much of the fuel load around the CG as possible. A straight 25% increase in dimensions for the wing could come close, but special attention would still need to be applied to the airfoil section to ensure the wing can still function correctly and within acceptable parameters.
Unfortunately, my usual computer is dead, with serious HDD problems so I cannot run any numbers nor can I do any drawings . Fortunately all my design software and files are on seperate HDD's, only the Operating system disk is dead. I guess I am lucky to have a spare system so I can still do the basics.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-30-2004, 10:04 AM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StRaNgEdAyS
I love that pic you did Steve!
..... (and let's face it, to fit an extra 2 seats in, it's going to end up with a craft nearly twice the size of the baseline).... I'd be lengthening the strakes forward, along with increasing their relative span, trying to get as much of the fuel load around the CG as possible.
There you go - twice the baseline

Increase relative span, mmmmmmm currently they hold about 30 gallons a side, are you shooting for 60 gals a side? One problem is the angle formed by the strake back to the leading edge of the wing and then back to the spar. The geometry tells me that doubling the capacity is going to be tough. You will also lose volume as you are probably have to go from the 3/8ths foam to 1" foam and that will not be easy to work with.

Ok if you have strange AND turbo working with you, your chances of starting to build this bird just went up 400% - 2006 for the start date?

The size of the prop, prop size is determined by RPM, ground clearance, and availability. I think you will be in the range of 68 to 72", to go bigger requires slower shaft speed and finding one.

may want to hang the engine out an extra 24" to get airflow to the prop around that big body or attach a "driveshaft" to it to get it way out back

If you do that you may have to increase the landing gear length to get prop clearance.

__________________
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
  #39  
Old 07-30-2004, 12:18 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarbleTurtle
How about this...
Did you photoshop that? Is it a real plane?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-30-2004, 12:27 PM
Steve parkins's Avatar
Steve parkins Steve parkins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: wa state
Posts: 2,163
Default

yes all fake just junnin , kidding, no sheet rock screws were injure in the makeing for these photo
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-30-2004, 12:50 PM
MarbleTurtle's Avatar
MarbleTurtle MarbleTurtle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dalton, GA.
Posts: 1,344
Default

Actually the plane I showed was a real prototype that never made it into production. Do a google search on AASI...
__________________
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-30-2004, 01:45 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
There you go - twice the baseline

Ok if you have strange AND turbo working with you, your chances of starting to build this bird just went up 400% - 2006 for the start date?


2006 sounds good to me! I do want to be thorough with the plan. By the way... thanks for the help guys.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-30-2004, 01:47 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarbleTurtle
Actually the plane I showed was a real prototype that never made it into production. Do a google search on AASI...

It was for sale. So did anyone buy it?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-30-2004, 08:54 PM
Turbotag's Avatar
Turbotag Turbotag is offline
Designing new canard
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Spirit Lake, IA
Posts: 50
Wink Thanks for the prod Dust

The great thing about this site is that we get plenty of incouragement and a little(?) prod to get moving.

1. An interative design is not starting from scratch. You must also recalculate all the parameters. But trust me it is much easier to start with a a base line aircraft then to start from scratch.

2. I am not going quite as roomy as Wapati8. There will be no crawling from the front seats to the back. The cross section of the fuse will grow and it will definitely get longer.

3. Definitely want to keep the fuel CG close to the plane CG since the wing is bigger and I don't need the storage space in the strakes I should be able to get a significantly larger amount of fuel on board. Will the plane have the same range .......probably not.

Thanks for the shove Dust.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-31-2004, 09:31 AM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotag
The great thing about this site is that we get plenty of incouragement and a little(?) prod to get moving.

1. An interative design is not starting from scratch. You must also recalculate all the parameters. But trust me it is much easier to start with a a base line aircraft then to start from scratch.
That is very encouraging...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotag
2. I am not going quite as roomy as Wapati8. There will be no crawling from the front seats to the back. The cross section of the fuse will grow and it will definitely get longer.
Will you still help me with my slightly wider version?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbotag
3. Definitely want to keep the fuel CG close to the plane CG since the wing is bigger and I don't need the storage space in the strakes I should be able to get a significantly larger amount of fuel on board. Will the plane have the same range .......probably not.
At least in that regard we are having similar thoughts. I guess the idea of a six place cozy is a similar thought as well...

I really want to build a family plane. This means it has to be functional in flight, almost an airborne minivan. So I have to keep the following points in mind.

1. Safety, (one or two engines, glide ratio, crash survivability )

2. Speed, and range

3. The flights (hours long) need to be comfortable for the children.

a. My wife needs to be able to see into the rear seating area and move there if one of the children need her. He being able to come back up

b. I will probably have a comm. headset for each child and tie it into an entertainment system like, a flat panel monitor connected to a DVD player/radio combo.

4. I think this plane should fly hi and fast… so it needs to be pressurized. (I made this it’s own question because it touches on both safety and comfort.)


So looking at this list of concerns, I come up with the following questions and comments:

1. Do you think a twin with two 280 hp engines or a single with one 420 hp engine would be better?

2. In regard to speed, I know the answer to question #1 ties into that. In regard to range, how would you redesign the strakes to maximize fuel capacity and maintain a safe CG? Reducing the baggage/storage area in the strakes was mentioned. I read that Nat Puffer used a 4" pvc pipe with a chain, an electric motor, and a large lead weight to shift the CG in his original test MK IV. Do you thinksomething like that would be practical to help with balast when the whole family wasn't aboard (or if she needed to ride in the back with the kids) or as the fuel is used up?

3. What do you think of my idea about the bulkhead to allow my wife room to look or crawl into the back? If that isn't important to you, why not?

a. I have three kids. The way it would work in reality is that my wife would probably ride in the back to attend to them. But I would like to think that she could move up in front with me if they are calm (this is how it works on road trips in the Honda Odyssey, on short trips she is up front with me when they are calm, in the back with them when they are not).

b. I see a DVD player/radio combo and LCD screen in the rear compartment working it's way into my design. I would like to use this airplane to take my children places and do things we otherwise could never do as a family. I have these fantasies of family vacations on the east coast (US Historical sites etc)... the Rockies (Yellowstone park, my parents etc)... the west coast (we used to live in the San Jose Area and still have friends there)... etc etc.

4. How hard is it to pressurize an airplane? What is involved? What about back up oxygen? (Wow this is getting complicated).

I am tempted just to build a MK IV... get it finished and flying then start in on the six place plane, then sell the MK IV when the six place plane is finished. Then again I don't want to build a plane that I can't take the whole family in. You know building the MK IV will take me years as it is... If I knew someone building one nearby I would help them just for the experience.

I really like the way this thread is going. I value everyone's input.

I would like to work up a simple plan for both the twin and the single and test it with a software model. (Maybe something like an X-plane test would be helpful).

I want to get RG from Infinity, what do you think about that? I would like to be able to land this thing on rough airfields, that is not really a requirement but it would be nice. I know that would require a redesing of the nose gear.

Given the stated purpose for the aircraft it will definitely be IFR, but I don’t think that is necessary until after I get the phase II certificate.

Wow this has gotten long. I will stop for now.
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 12:55 PM.


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