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 07-31-2004, 11:51 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
1. Do you think a twin with two 280 hp engines or a single with one 420 hp engine would be better?
I'd go with the twins, simply because it is easier to deal with the extra space by substituting passengers for where the engine used to be and shifting the power outward that way you won't have to lengthen the craft too much. The extra engine is somewhat of a safety factor, John says it just takes you longer to get to the crash site, but then that extra time could also get you to flatter ground or even the runway.
Quote:
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?
lengthening the strakes further towards the nose, and making the wing root/strake tip join further out along the span should go a long way to achieve this. moving the wings forward a little and using some wing spage to hold fuel could work as well. I'd advise against any dynamic CoG adjusting devices, even the act of moving about in flight can be a risky venture, IF you're likely to have wee'uns that need tending in flight, I'd be putting them in the centre rearward facing seats, so your Wife would not have to do much more than swing around in her seat to tend them. Better to work on keeping the fuel load around the CoG and making a larger luggage storage area in the nose to compensate for the loss of starke storage space. This can also provide a great offset for the aft shift CoG as people get in, more people usually means more bags in the nose to compensate.
Your ideas for in flight entertainment sound pretty good, just make sure all the toilet trips have been done before lift off..LOL
Quote:
How hard is it to pressurize an airplane? What is involved? What about back up oxygen? (Wow this is getting complicated).
It's not hard to pressurise a plane, the turbo's on the engines can do that, the trick is keeping it in and that requires the fuselage to be built as a pressure vessel. All you need to do is keep 10K altitude pressure to stay safe, but at 25K that adds up to a fair whack of pressure and that requires seals for the controls, and fairly hefty locking doors and canopies. backup Ox is relatively simple in comparison.
It wouldn't really be that much of a stretch, after all, this is going to be a whole new design even if we are going to be working up from a baseline craft.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-31-2004, 02:06 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

What he said. Twin. That way the people and engines can be closer to the CG and the plane doesnt get too long.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-02-2004, 04:06 PM
mtorzews's Avatar
mtorzews mtorzews is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 100
Default

Wapati8, How old are your children? How many years will it take for you to build the plane?

The reason I'm asking is my children are of the age where they need constant tending from my wife on car trips. (6 months, and 2 years). Taking a family vacation in a MkIV would not be practical right now as the kids would be too far away. BUT by the time I get this plane built my kids will be old enough to tend themselves. The plane will take me somewhere between 5 - 10 years to build. Will your wife really need to access the kids in back when the plane is done? I'm thinking a DVD and playstation (version ?) will do nicely to tend the kids during flight.
__________________
Michael Torzewski
Chapter 4? Maybe
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-02-2004, 05:00 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Think of it another way. Once they get over about 3 years you might WANT that barrier to keep them in the back.

Seriously - access to the back isnt much of a problem if you replace the bulkhead with a hoop of some sort. Wayne Hicks did something in wood. I used spar cap tape. Either way works.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-02-2004, 05:36 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtorzews
Wapati8, How old are your children? How many years will it take for you to build the plane?

BUT by the time I get this plane built my kids will be old enough to tend themselves. The plane will take me somewhere between 5 - 10 years to build. Will your wife really need to access the kids in back when the plane is done? I'm thinking a DVD and playstation (version ?) will do nicely to tend the kids during flight.
Well... mine are 7,4, and 1 right now. If it takes me that long to build who knows how many more we'll have... (wife wants at least one more) jeez maybe by then I will just have to buy a Beech Starship.

I was hoping to get the plans done this next year... start building by 2006... be done by 2009... so by then my kids should be 12, 9, 6, and 3... Yep wife still needs access to the back...

Hey seriously would starting on a MK IV be the wrong way to go if what I need is a MK VI or VII?

What if I buy a Long EZ or a Cozy MK IV project that is mostly done to fly while I am building the SixZ? Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-02-2004, 06:47 PM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Quote:
would starting on a MK IV be the wrong way to go if what I need is a MK VI or VII?
I think this would be a good way to go for two reasons:

1. Building one per plans would give you the knowledge and skills you'd need to build the custom one later.

2. When it's done you might find that you dont really need all that space anyway. Perhaps you'll use the Cozy more for fun Weekend getaway trips with the wife. Complete familiy long distance trips might be rare and easily handled by car or commercial flights. Usage is the key. If you have a 4 seat Cozy, and find after using it for a year or so that it's too small, then you're in a perfect position to build a bigger one.

Quote:
What if I buy a Long EZ or a Cozy MK IV project that is mostly done to fly while I am building the SixZ?
Mostly Done is the key phrase here. Ever heard the phrase 90% done. 90% to go? It's true. Buy a project with the airframe complete and you're about 60% done towards the 90% in terms of labor, and 30% done toward the 90% in terms of expense.
It'll save some time, and possibly some money if you buy at a good price, but the learning curve will be harder than starting from scratch, and there's always the doubt about whether it was done right by the previous builder.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-02-2004, 09:32 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Well, what most of us here are trying to politely say, is your chance of completing the airplane if you merely buy the plans or a kit and start building are basically 1 in 5.

Realistically, if you now decide to design a plane and you have no proir knowledge of designing an airplane, your realistic chance of completing it are probably 1 in 5 again. thats 25 to 1 odds, a real long shot.

Everyone here really wants everyone here to complete the process of building a plane. We just know the odds, you CAN beat them, and if you are going to, us telling you you can't, will not stop you.

It would really, really make me happy one day for you to fly here and show me your cabin class light twin 6 + baggage plane for me to bow down and appologize for doubting you. Please do, dinner for you and your 5 passengers will be on me, and it wont be burger king, nothing but top drawer.
__________________
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
  #53  
Old 08-03-2004, 12:58 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
Please do, dinner for you and your 5 passengers will be on me, and it wont be burger king, nothing but top drawer.
he means it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
Everyone here really wants everyone here to complete the process of building a plane. We just know the odds, you CAN beat them, and if you are going to, us telling you you can't, will not stop you.
He's right about that to, but I doubt many will actually say you can't, but we may point out some problems, pitfalls and things that will keep you awake at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
Realistically, if you now decide to design a plane and you have no proir knowledge of designing an airplane, your realistic chance of completing it are probably 1 in 5 again. thats 25 to 1 odds, a real long shot.
Once again he is correct, I am building one plane as I design another, and I can tell you, if I were the type to just chuck it in when it got too hard, I'd have never even bought the software I needed to design much less the plans to build the other plane. (yes, I started deisgning long before I considered building a plans built aircraft)
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Slade
1. Building one per plans would give you the knowledge and skills you'd need to build the custom one later.
Once again a fact. It's one of the reasons I decided to build a small plans build craft while I was working on my design, It gives me a bit more of an insight to what's involved in building a plane, so I don't go designing something that's really gonna be impossible to build without an army of CNC robots with multi jointed arms
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapati8
I was hoping to get the plans done this next year...
That's also quite a long shot for someone who has no prior experience. I was hoping to get my plans drawn up for my tin jet in a few months, that was over 18 months ago, and only now am I close enough to having something I'm happy with. If it wasn't for the fact I have to wait for new a disk drive to reinstall my O/S (which should be here by now) I'd be working on it again today!
Even with a lot of help, you are still going to need to do a lot of study, research and trial and error before you start to make some real progress.
3 years to build is not a bad estimate, if you devote pretty much all of your spare time to it.
Now back to the props, One of the main reasons twins are not embraced more often in the experimental arena is as Dust said before, the HUGE losses in performance experienced upon loss of one engine. This is mainly due to the large amount of drag produced by the windmilling prop. if you are to make a multi engine craft viable, it must still be able to climb (even very slowly) on one prop, so in order to reduce the drag you must be able to feather the prop. This kind of hub adds a little weight, and expense, but it's sure lighter than boosting the engine sizes to be able to compensate for having to work on only one, and a heck of a lot cheaper than a crash. (Well the crash can come free, but the aftermath can get a little pricey )
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:11 AM
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 StRaNgEdAyS
I was hoping to get my plans drawn up for my tin jet in a few months, that was over 18 months ago, and only now am I close enough to having something I'm happy with.
Why don't you post a rendering of that tin jet and show the rest what you've been doing? I've seen it on the HBF. You've got quite a bit of engineering into that design.
__________________
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
  #55  
Old 08-03-2004, 08:58 AM
StRaNgEdAyS's Avatar
StRaNgEdAyS StRaNgEdAyS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: New South Wales Australia
Posts: 490
Default

Awwwwwwww shucks!
OK here's a pic of my tin jet.
It's basically built around a 600lb thrust pulse jet engine.
Gross weight: <1200lbs, max speed: estimated at least 360MPH, range: not very far.
Totally and inconceivably impractical, life changing event LOUD, outrageously fuel inefficient (at 3lb/lb/hr WOT, 800lbs of fuel should just make it through 1/2hr of flight time, yes it's a flying fuel tank) and 100% built for that balls to the wall, seat of your pants thrill.
It will probably spend most of it's time flying exhibition at air shows for it's WOW factor, and I'm building it because even the thought of flying it sets the hairs on my neck on end and gives me tingles and because it's one of those things that "can't be done" we Aussies LOVE to take on.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-03-2004, 04:07 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
It would really, really make me happy one day for you to fly here and show me your cabin class light twin 6 + baggage plane for me to bow down and appologize for doubting you. Please do, dinner for you and your 5 passengers will be on me, and it wont be burger king, nothing but top drawer.
Is there a time limit on that invite?

Two problems here.

1. By the time I finish the cozy I will need the six place aircraft, and really be kicking myself that I didn't stick to my guns.

2. I want to be building and working on this now.

I totally see the logic in building the Cozy first. I could be flying in it while I build the six seater. I am just afraid I won't move on to building the six seater. That is what I really want/need. Will the wife fly in it with the kids though? That is the million dollar question. I am letting my inner monologue the one with doubts show through, this is bad. This is the voice that is telling me to just build a long EZ... no one else will want to fly with you anyway.

It seems the answer is sorta simple (not so simple really) just increase the size of the plans to accomodate the size in the fuselage that I need. Work up the apropriate wing size, center of gravity and vailoi... off and running. Shouldn't the single 420 hp 20b work? I know higher horse power uses more fuel. There are plenty of ways increase fuel capacity, one is that you increase the strake size...

Quote:
Originally Posted by StRaNgEdAyS
Now back to the props, One of the main reasons twins are not embraced more often in the experimental arena is as Dust said before, the HUGE losses in performance experienced upon loss of one engine. This is mainly due to the large amount of drag produced by the windmilling prop. if you are to make a multi engine craft viable, it must still be able to climb (even very slowly) on one prop, so in order to reduce the drag you must be able to feather the prop. This kind of hub adds a little weight, and expense, but it's sure lighter than boosting the engine sizes to be able to compensate for having to work on only one, and a heck of a lot cheaper than a crash. (Well the crash can come free, but the aftermath can get a little pricey )
I am willing to consider the twin... if we use a twin design are we stuck with a lycosaurus if we want a variable speed prop, one that can be feathered.

What happes with a fixed pitch prop on a single rotary when the engine quits?

If we put two engines on the airplane wouldn't we have to widen the strakes and mount them there?

I was going to use RG to put the main gear out wide to help avoid kicking up debri into the prop when using grass or unimproved landing strips. Now if we use two engines we have to put them out on the wings puting the props almost directly in line with the wheels.

Most of what I want to incorporate into the design has been done by one or more of you. I figure if I am posting my progress and my plans as I go... all of your experience can help me. That is assuming you want to.

When I get back in the states in September I am starting to build something!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-04-2004, 10:18 AM
Turbotag's Avatar
Turbotag Turbotag is offline
Designing new canard
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Spirit Lake, IA
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
I am willing to consider the twin... if we use a twin design are we stuck with a lycosaurus if we want a variable speed prop, one that can be feathered.
NO...and NO. There is work on variable props for the homebuilder and non standard engines.

Quote:
What happes with a fixed pitch prop on a single rotary when the engine quits?
It windmills and creates a lot of drag.

Quote:
If we put two engines on the airplane wouldn't we have to widen the strakes and mount them there?
Yes...and the wing is going to grow anyway.

Quote:
I was going to use RG to put the main gear out wide to help avoid kicking up debri into the prop when using grass or unimproved landing strips. Now if we use two engines we have to put them out on the wings puting the props almost directly in line with the wheels.
This is one of my reasons for wanting to move the wing to bottom of the fuselage. With the engine mounted on top (and the appropriate departure angle calculated) it should be almost impossible for the the gear to kick anything up into the prop. but I am still not sure about unimproved strips.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-04-2004, 11:24 AM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapati8
I am just afraid I won't move on to building the six seater. That is what I really want/need.
Wapati8-this idea, while noble, this idea would be nearly impossible for 1 man to do. I saw a 6 seat canard pusher at Oshkosh and it must have weighed in the 4000 lb-7000 lb class. Just based on the extra materials required, you're looking at doubling or quadrupling the man-hrs & cost. (It's a lot harder to do big layups than small layups).

You WILL face many wieght & balance, and lift issues that aren't easily predicted without engineering & design tools. Also, keep in mind that a scaled version of the Cozy isn't your best platform for a 6 seater. You really need to redesign the entire thing.

Why don't you learn how to do Xplane and design & fly it on a computer?

A couple things:
-Use carbon fiber--it's lighter than glass & you'll need to weight savings.
-2 engines, do you want to risk your family of 6 on a single experimental engine?
-Stronger gear to handle the wieght. Need to redesign both NG & RG as well as their structural bulkheads
-bigger wings (and may need a different airfoil)
-Stronger spar
-many many more


What you should do is look at "www.wingco.com". They have a 5 place blended wing body aircraft that is much more suitable than a cozy for the kind of space you require.







Just based on the extra weight This could easily quadruple the time required, and it might not even be very flyable.

This doe


At minimum, you should consider carbon fiber to cut down on weight.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-04-2004, 04:54 PM
Wapati8's Avatar
Wapati8 Wapati8 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Austin Texas
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
Wapati8-this idea, while noble, this idea would be nearly impossible for 1 man to do. I saw a 6 seat canard pusher at Oshkosh and it must have weighed in the 4000 lb-7000 lb class. Just based on the extra materials required, you're looking at doubling or quadrupling the man-hrs & cost. (It's a lot harder to do big layups than small layups).

You WILL face many wieght & balance, and lift issues that aren't easily predicted without engineering & design tools. Also, keep in mind that a scaled version of the Cozy isn't your best platform for a 6 seater. You really need to redesign the entire thing.

Why don't you learn how to do Xplane and design & fly it on a computer?.
I intend to model it on x-plane or something similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
What you should do is look at "www.wingco.com". They have a 5 place blended wing body aircraft that is much more suitable than a cozy for the kind of space you require.
You are the second person in this string to recommend wingco.com. Has anyone seen these fly? Is there an established safety record? Nevermind, don't answer, I really don't want one. If I were going to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a kit plane I would rather fly a Lionheart from Griffon than one of those. It just looks really really cool!



This modern composite version will hold seven people! It kind of has a canard effect with its staggerwing set up.

It is based on a Beechcraft D17, a 1930s aircraft that was the "corporate jet" of it's day, it was also pressed into military service during WWII. It was a piston driven metal aircraft that did over 200 miles an hour carrying 5 people on it's radial P&W 450 HP motor, you can still buy flying D17s in decent shape for over $200,000. You can buy really crappy ones, that may not be airworthy for around $100,000.

I would still use a 20b on it. The 420+ hp of the 20b is comparable to the pratt and whitney radial. Anybody know how to disguise a 20b in a radial cowling?

Anyway all of this is completely

I am not building a wingco flying wing. Or a lionheart.

I like the look and performance of aircraft based on the Rutan canard designs, plans built. Simple as that. The lionheart is a cool plane though, (any of you rich guys out there that are concerned for my safety could buy me the lionheart kit and I might not build the SixZ). (Pardon me for going back off topic).

I plan on using design software... I am buying Raymer's design books and maybe his software, unless one of you can suggest something better. I will rely heavily on Turbotag and any of the rest of you that will help me, and we will safely and cautiously move forward.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-05-2004, 08:34 AM
tnt's Avatar
tnt tnt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Denver Colorado
Posts: 1,202
Default

Here's a couple bits of info. 1) There was a guy who built a great looking Vari-Eze with two motors, Jaburu's I think. He found the bird had a left turning tendancy he could never figure out how to remove. I didn't bother looking at his props to see if the direction of rotation would've been the cause of this or if it was something else, like a difference in aileron gaps.

2) If you put your wing on the bottom of your fuselage rather than mid-way thru, be sure not to taper the fuselage where the wing is thinning to the trailing edge. Keep the fuselage of constant width thru there. The problem is that the combination of the upper-surface of that wing section and a tapering fuselage causes a suction and significant drag.

Tom
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 11:03 AM.


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