ekisbey

For those looking at the EFIS/One from BMA, I see on their website that prices are going up again at the end of May, this time to $14,975. On the other hand, the EFIS/Lite now incorporates it's own moving map display, albeit without all the gizmos the /One offers. All the same, things are starting to look mighty pricey compared to the system I first saw last year. I suppose my hopes for a downward trend in prices for this type of equipment, regardless of manufacturer, were rather naive.

We got kicked into the waiting list. 1st Cavalry Division's deployment has supposedly been postponed or cancelled for the immediate future, though we're still waiting on the official word. CNN seems to think we're not going anywhere, and most of the time they find out before we do. In any event, it seems unlikely that I'll be over there soon enough to see significant tax benefits, considering the current state of hostilities in that theater. In the meantime we're still loading gear and working like we'll be leaving yeasterday. Official line is "The 1st Cavalry Division is in reciept of deployment orders in support of the Global War on Terrorism." Read what you want to into that. What any of this has to do with the x-prize, I have no clue. Just thought I'd throw it out there for the curious. Guess I gotta change my signature now. Speaking of Rutan's shot at the x-prize; I was reading the various articles I saw posted on his project yesterday and saw nothing specific concerning the craft he intends to use as the carrier vehicle. I see some references about it being based on Scaled Composites' Proteus craft, but is it a derivative, an alternate configuration, or an entirely new aircraft? My understanding was that Proteus was designed with a similar use in mind. Was it not up to the task or are we seeing a payload variant of the original modular configuration?

There goes the x-prize. What's next?

There was one on... Sunday, I think, where you could hear automatic gunfire in the background as he paused to look over his shoulder. I look forward to hearing what he'll deny next.

The "I" channel, or international channel, sometimes shows Iraqi TV Broadcasts. We've been watching that in the dayroom and get a real kick out of the info minister's broadcasts. Keep expecting to see one of those Comedy Central icons to appear in the corner of the screen. Great stuff.

I've been looking at the same one, I think. Be sure and let us know how you like it. It's either that one or the 99 dollar Ryobi at Home Depot, for me.

It was

One thing I have noticed on this forum is that when it comes to getting information about aquiring or deciding on an engine, particularly if it is of the reccommended type, the responses are few and far between. My decision was made considerably simpler a few days ago when world events decided to alter my schedule. My decision now: wait and see what I think in a year or so.

"join the revolution!"

How much weight are we looking at adding to the engine when a turbo is added? I ask this because I'm strongly considering a 320 instead of the 360 (actually, my order of preference is 320, 13B, and then 360), and it sounds to me like a turbo normalized 320 would have the same power available for cruise at altitude as a non-turboed 360. Upon reflection, though, I don't think I've ever seen a turboed 320... Of course, the real question is whether or not a turboed 320 would end up weighing the same as a 360, in which case I might as well go with the 360 and have the extra 20 horses available at sea level. Then again, it might all be a moot discussion for me; I might require the larger engine to get my CG in range anyhow. Decisions, decisions! Where does it all end??

If you're going the turbo-normaliztion route, what kind of differences in available power would you have at altitude?

John, do you have any solid figures on what the final weight of your engine installation will be?

There's a lot of info on a lot of lycoming and continental engines at this website: http://www.factoryengines.com Correction: There's a LOT of engines listed on this site, and the prices this company is quoting, but no specs. Good starting point though.

As I'm revving up towards purchasing an engine, I'm beginning to realize just how much I don't know on the subject, especially in the used engine market. I'm finding that a lot of the things I thought I knew were inaccurate, and VERY little of what I know of automotive engines seems applicable. This is new territory, for me. In particular, I'm having a hard time determining just what exactly a "good deal" on a engine is. For example, I don't know what a yellow tag implies, unless it's the same as the military uses, and how it affects engine value. I don't know what to make of replacement parts offered for sale, such as crankshafts, since I'd always believed a bad shaft meant a bad engine, period. Where do I go (besides a school) to learn these things, or get some advice on the subject? Also, I've noticed a retailer on a couple of the want-ad pages named premiumaircraftparts.com that seems to have a pretty wide selection of engines, parts, kits, and options available, at what sound like realistic prices. Anyone have opinions on them?

I've noticed there's not a lot of talk (actually, NONE comes to mind) about Continental's 360 sized engines. I've seen references to the similarity of Lycoming and Continental's designs, and I see some for sale on Barnstormer's and such, but I was wondering if there's any flying in a Cozy. If not, is there a specific reason?

That's the kind of info I was looking for. While I was aware that the 320 is also reccommended in the plans, I also noticed that there seems to be a shortage of Cozys flying with one. It struck me as somewhat odd, even taking into consideration that the 360 is not much more expensive and of a roughly similar weight, with greater power, and wondered if there were another reason. Actually, I wasn't really "implying" anything, or perhaps I didn't supply enough info. Yes, I am aware of the range limitations at cruise, and have some idea how long it'll take me after stopping for fuel to travel the said 2000 miles or less. I meant that we plan on traveling distances less than 2000 miles, meaning one or perhaps even two stops for fuel if the winds aren't cooperating. Considering that we've always taken the asphalt to our destinations, driving for two or sometimes three days (well, a day and a half straight through, but soldiers aren't supposed to do that-- against the rules, y'know ), the thought of doing the whole trip in one day and arriving in time for dinner is appealing. Getting there three or four hours later is not a big deal. I visited Nat in December prior to purchasing plans, to see the "as advertised" model firsthand, and to get a feel for the designer himself. I was also concerned about whether my 76 inches (and hence, greater mass) would be too large and wanted to try the Cozy on for size. We hit on the engine subject, I even asked about the Franklin, but nothing he said helped to make up my mind. It was one of those "you can probably go either way, just move the battery or something heavy if the balance isnt right" type discussions. That was the gist of it anyhow. I'm concerned about the engine because it's the one part of the plane that I can forsee myself stalling on (funds, availability, etc). I plan on getting the engine purchased early in the contruction process so I'll know it's waiting for me, not the other way around, and I'll have no excuses. Okay. I'm about to reveal just how deep my ignorance runs here: I'm curious about was a reference I saw to fuel type. The document stated 80/87 for the 320, and 100/130 for the 360. Was this accurate? And what is the difference in price and availability for these fuels in the US? Thanks again.

Can someone give a comparison between the performance of an O-360 and the O-320 as far as suitability on a MkIV? I've seen lots of data on both engines, and the more I look into it, the more I find myself considering the O-320 over the O-360. I know there are/were MkIV's flying with the 320, and I'd appreciate opinions. Factors such as cooling efficiency, fuel burn, wieght and balance issues, maintenance costs, and reliability are highest on the curiosity chart. I ask this because during a recent discussion my wife and I decided that while cruising at around 200 knots was tempting, anything that'll get us over 150 satisfies our needs adequately. Especially since we're generally talking about distances less than two thousand miles.

Something else an aoernautical engineer buddy of mine pointed out: With two engines you're twice as likely to have an engine failure. That being said, there's a question as to whether one engine on an installation like this can fly the Cozy. Sure, you might have enough horsepower, but will the plane fly with the thrust line out of kilter? From what I understand, there's not a lot of rudder authority to work with in the first place, and less at lower speeds. Combined with the drag from the dead fan and shroud, the off-center thrust line, and the fact that the rudders are independent of each other ond only work in one direction each, the yaw rate such a failure would produce could concievably force you to kill the other engine just to fly in a straight line, though you might be able to get by until final. Point is, if you're twice as likely to have an engine go out, and losing one probably means going without the other, you're probably better off either going for twin counter-rotating props, or a single engine. Or, you could always call Nat. But I think we can all guess his reaction.

If you've been following John's project you'll also be familliar with his fuel system woes. The first thing that occurred to me was that with two engines you're going to have more than twice the complexity of the fuel system, and it won't be something you cna just copy from another rotary powered aircraft. Remember that you're not only going to have to supply fuel into two engines instead of one, but you're going to have new failure modes with switching and controlling fuel flow into both engines, to include fuel pressure and flow issues. Will both engines draw from the same tank? One from each? A sump tank? Will each be independent of the other? A seperate pump for each? Return lines? Getting everything to work together is gonna be a nightmare, because you're designing it from scratch. It might be a bigger bite of engineereing than you think. Best of luck.

What's the best place to get a smart level? Home Depot didn't even know what I was talking about. For that matter, the first guy I talked to didn't even know where the levels were; he led me to plumbing before I re-directed him to tools. I felt pretty silly when he pointed them out, right there on the wall in front of me. Duh. One of their tool guys gave me a pretty good pitch on a laser level, and he had me going until I explained exactly what I was building with the toys, er, tools I was asking about. At that point I think he decided I was a nutcase and wasn't going to buy anything, and ignored me from there on out. He was half right. I got frustrated with being ignored and left without buying anything. Too bad, I was about ten seconds from biting on that laser level.

Imagine everyone else's reaction on the ramp when they hear you shifting gears. You'd likely give some poor old fella a heart attack.

Oh darn, would you look at that? I drooled on myself...

As a Soldier, I've got a lot of really good reasons NOT to build, especially considering the trend in current world events. 1.) I decide NOT to order materials for the first few chapters and get started with the first layups, so they don't sit safe and unharmed in my garage and gather dust for a year or so when I suddenly get deployed. A year or so later I'll come back with enough money in the bank to pay for the rest of the airframe outright but find another reason not to get started. 2.) I decide to put off ordering materials, waiting for the proverbial poop on the fan. Three years from now I'll still be waiting while everyone else is flying their aircraft. 3.) I decide that it's too much hassle to worry about moving the project if I get reassigned. Four years from now, when I finally do get reassigned, I'll look back and wish I'd built when I had the chance. Then I'll decide not to build because I might get reassigned again. 4.) I don't want to take advantage of the tool shops, facilities, and general resources available to military personnel. 5.) I'd rather listen to my peers laugh at me for dreaming, rather than repect me for my determination. 6.) I don't want to get involved in an expensive project while I have a steady, dependable paycheck in an unsteady, unpredictable economy. I want to wait until I get out of the military and find a job that I might get laid off from, mid-project. 7.) My wife and I enjoy being stationed halfway across the country from our families, and would rather drive 36 hours each way to visit and arrive smelly and exhausted. 8.) I like spending two or three days off each end of my already short vacation getting there. I think I'd better stop right there, otherwise I might be here all day.

Three words come to mind. Blind Goose Deflector.

The movements and deployments are not stopping me. I'm on Ft. Hood, and certainly deploying if the current trend continues. Until I get the order to deploy in my hands, however, I'm going to continue as if nothing was happening. Judging by current world events, one of two things could happen: 1.) I order materials for the first few chapters and get started with the first layups, but they sit in my garage and gather dust for a year or so when I suddenly get deployed. A year or so later I'll come back with enough money in the bank to pay for the rest of the airframe outright. Or... 2.) I order materials and start building, and finish the airplane while everyone who was waiting for the proverbial poop on the fan gets disappointed. Find a reason to put it off now, and you'll find another, and another... Of course, those may not be options for you. Just wanted to throw my pennies into the mix.