Jim Hann

I've got a set, s/n 455. Purchased them from Nat in 1987. I also have the High performance rudder plans and Vance Atkinson's Roncz canard plans. If you are interested contact me off line.

Jim

LNav(dot)VNav(at)gmail(dot)com

Plans are sold. Thanks!

I missed all of this' wrapped up in life and such. How is it going Jon?

I've got a set, s/n 455. Purchased them from Nat in 1987. I also have the High performance rudder plans and Vance Atkinson's Roncz canard plans. If you are interested contact me off line.

Jim

LNav(dot)VNav(at)gmail(dot)com

Good to see you and the 'Zone back online!

BTW, on the newer Embraer 145s, the standby instrument system (called ISIS:Integrated Standby Instrument System) is also on a tube, aka EFIS. I believe it is an LCD display, it has its own attitude gyro, airspeed, and altimeter, but borrows heading (which is not included in the mechanical standbys it replaces) from the #1 AHRS or IRS.

No 4,

You make me glad that I have "dry" engines on the 41! I know the old Metros had Water/Meth injection, but all the newer birds use something like the APR we have on the 41.

Basically, the Integrated Electronic Control (IEC) for the engine will modify its parameters when something bad happens (the other engine quits) to allow more power than would be available at the current SAT (OAT). For the TPE-331-14 on the Jetstream 41, it gives us a 40degree C rise in maximum EGT, which correlates to 13% increase in torque but it won't go above 100% total torque. It can be used for five minutes only.

The penalty? Every time the APR fires it costs the company 12 cycles (engine starts), and 200 hours of engine life for every hour of use, or 3.33333333 hours per minute.

I have never had to use it in 2,800 hour on the airplane, but I did have the APR fire once on short final on both engines (malfunction), it was a little strange, but nothing bad happened except that the airplane was in maintenance for two days to find out why it happened.

Anybody want to try that with a piston?

Originally posted by cncdoc

Lear 35 loop? or no.

 

No. A Lear 35 is cool enough and fast enough to never need to do aerobatics.

 

Ironically so is the Cozy

 

Kevin

Actually, the Lear 35 rolls very nicely. I have witnessed it on many occasions (all well over six months ago for legality purposes). It rolls best above 15,000' and below about FL230. Loop? Naw, would pick up way too much speed on the down line, just like the Cozy.

Will I roll my Cozy if I ever get to build it? Probably, but I will make sure I have an idea what is going on before I do it.

Jim

Hey folks, anybody who is around a cable TV, C-Span is carrying the FFC live now, 0830-1000 CST, 0930-1100 EST.

Found a streaming link of C-Span, you can watch at work:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

Enjoy,

Jim

Guys,

All this kindness and well-meaning is killing me. Everyone has the forum's best interests at heart. It sounds like Jon has the equipment to keep this thing running for years to come. I do think that John and Nick should keep running it like they have been (no offense to Jon) regardless of where it is hosted and what the domain name is.

If I remember correctly, Nick originally had it under a different domain with a pointer from cozyaircraft.com to it. It worked fine that way, so I am sure that we can come up with a domain name to register, if needed.

This is not the only vBulletin board I post on. They all look different but the operate the same (that is to say well.) I want to see it stay, I will pay if I need to, but keep this going.

My suggestion is: Jon, John, and Nick, get on the phone, or in a chat room and discuss this amongst yourselves. Between the three of you, I think you can do no worse than keep this board running exactly the same as it today. My opinion is that you will improve it when all is said and done.

As for me, I survived another recurrent ride in the box today, and I have to go fly the real thing tomorrow. Be safe.

Jim

Originally posted by FloridaFlyer

Speaking of construction methods... just how loud is riveting. If I am in my garage with the door closed, will riveting disturb my neighbors. I live in a normal subdivision of single family homes with about 15' between houses.

I think that all depends on your neighbors and their feelings about their "right to enjoy the peace and serenity of their dwelling."

We have some folks here in STL that want to shut down a brand new R/C model airplane facility because the airpalnes are too loud, so loud that you can't hear them over the leaf blowers everyone is using this time of year. I would insulate your garage (heat/sound) and then see what it sounds like, it'll probably be worse in your own house than any where else. I know that my compressor is pretty loud, its a Craftsman upright. With the door closed it isn't that noticable outside. I wanted to build a shed behind the garage for it but I think that running it at 0300 would probably upset most of my neighbors. That will have to wait.

I personally still like the curvy shapes we can make with fiberglass and foam.

Jim

Originally posted by FloridaFlyer

 

Everything except for takeoff/landing distance. Also, I think the Cozy may be more CG sensitive.

Yes, the takeoff/landing distance doesn't compare, and I might be interested in an RV eventually, but I want the cross country cruising speed and I agree with the others, the basic airframe will cost less.

Do you mean the CG envelope is smaller on the Cozy? Does anybody know the size of the CG range on the -10?

A CG envelope can be exceeded in either airplane, the difference is, I rarely see anything about a canard having an excessively aft CG, it is normally to far forward, which is still bad, but not nearly as deadly (stall/spin). An aft CG is usually what happens in a "standard" airplane. I learned about aft CG back in the freight dog days. The ramp lied about the weights and I had more than a few four letter words for them as the Aerostar rotated on its own for takeoff, from a negative deck angle no less. Try flying for an hour in an airplane that is divergent in pitch (you can't let go of the yoke or keep the airplane at a given altitude.) No fun. Forward of the CG limit is bad, aft is/can be much worse.

Every airplane has its strengths and weakenesses, it is all a matter of what fits your needs and wants.

Fly safe.

Jim

Jon,

It sounds like a good idea to me. I would vote for that idea, and worry about it again when the time comes that Jon flies (are you a fast builder Jon?) Fly safe folks.

Jim

Originally posted by TES111

http://www.vaircraftengines.com/

 

Does anyone know anything about these guys other than thier own marketing and PR releases? Were they at OSH this year?

Yes, they were. Had the 300 HP on a Murphy Super Rebel I think. Sounded cool. Still in development.

Originally posted by LargePrime

I can see how they made the RPM mistake. I guess the half dozen shots of the gear reduction drives were missed.

 

I think the Brits were a bit reckless. Would you fly 200 feet in a plane that was built from "scratch" to "looks right" plans, by 3 virgins and one geek in 20 hours?

 

I think the french did the appropiate thing. No reason to belive they couldnt have done the same thing.

 

Perhaps I was a little severe. But the test at the end left a bad taste.

The hosts wouldn't know a gear reduction if it fell on their head.

Yes, I am not that crazy but some folks are/were, do you think they were egged on by the producers? After all it is entertainment.

The French completed the objectives and no more, that works. If you watch closely, in some of the wide shots you see the British team on the ground motioning to get him to land.

It's all cool, I am trying to keep it in perspective, it wasn't reality, it's television.

I would tend to disagree,

It was on TLC, which is part of the Discovery Channel group.

I believe the FAA's vote is the Airworthiness Certificate (or lack thereof). The lightest airplane I heard of was over 300 lbs., well above FAR 103 limits (254 lbs.) Also, did you notice how they "found" nice new sensenich props that worked on the engines they had to use, along with Poly Fiber covering?

As for RPM, have you ever flown a two-stroke? The gear reduced engines that I flew back in the heyday of Ultralights turned nearly six thousand RPM with props in the neighborhood of 3000. One Weedhopper in the neighborhood had a direct drive that turned the prop in the mid 4,000. They looked at the tach and saw 5,500 and didn't know it was engine instead of prop.

Last, you missed what I considered the biggest gaff in the program. During the intro, Karyn Bryant said that the Wright Brothers first flew in November of 1903.

I don't think they expected the results they got. The Brits up flying around the desert in circles while the other teams tried to complete a simple crowhop. The W&B was an issue for the USA but they also stated that they elected to leave the control surface off the aft lifting surface, which given its placement in the slipstream might have helped them lift the nose and get airborne.

I think it was good entertainment. Totally accurate? No. But we all know that television is not about reality (espeically not "reality" shows). And if one person realizes that they can build an airplane at home and fly it, all the better.