marbleturtle

Oh... No4 brought up a good point I forgot to mention. I hope to keep the weight in check using a lighter-than-plans rotary engine, but I may go 3 rotor and over-power it (400HP... hehe). I'm looking hard at developing my own glass cockpit with solid state gyro, pitot, gps, et al that would replace ye-ol-steam-guages. Chucking the mechanical stuff should save some weight. I may need to shove a few items in the nose to keep balance in check, but I'm looking at extending the nose some to ease the transition of a wider body. With the nose cone extending a few inches further out, it will give me a little more leverage against C of G using less weight. Hopefully I'll keep empty/gross weights close to normal despite the 6" worth of glass and acrylic nose to tail. All that work will be for naught if I end up with a 400 lb useful payload. I'm not going to compensate for heavier gross trying to use higher speeds. I don't want to play Concord on final. I don't want to re-engineer anything. I just want to add a teaspoon more of brown sugar to Uncle Nat's cookie recipe!

Watching the Lancair's do their flyby presentation at Airventure 2003 (Look John, I didn't call it Oshkosh this time!!!) was a sight to behold. Especially at the end where that IV turbine gliding by ripping through the air like silk. Composite? 4 Place? Kit? I had to check it out... $495,000. Okay, I made the right choice. I can't justify spending that much on something I may use 150 hours a year. Greg Richter is putting a jet engine in his Cozy... I wonder what that sucker will do.

Length is actually okay for me. At six feet, I may raise the canopy a little since my head was right up against the canopy, but leg length was good. Width is okay for me at the hips, but shoulder width is a problem. I've decided to go 2 or 3" wider each half of the fuselage all the way back. (4"-6" total added width) I've read a couple of people write that they widened the front and then tapered to the standard width at the back. I don't want to try that because I dont want to re-engineer the longerons and floor for a new shape. Just think of what I want to do as taking a band saw long ways down the fuselage and widening the sitting space and leg space by 3" all the way back. No new shapes. Same wings, 6" wider canard spar (inside fuselage), 6" wider main wing spar, 6" flat spot top of canopy. There would be a change in shape around the Turtleback, no need for the leading flares that blend into the engine cowling around the Lyco cylinder heads, but I would make that change regarless because I'm leaning toward using the Rotary. It does not protrude out the side like the designed Lycoming. There is also the consideration needed for the added frontal area of widening the fuselage and the added drag. I don't remember the exact calculation (time to drag out the aeronautics books), but increase in resistance is a geometric function in relation to increase in frontal area or flat plate drag. I'm looking at 250 HP which more than offsets the added drag. I'm also leaning toward retractable gear which will offset some of the added drag. I'm not an expert, so I can't recommend doing this. Some people would even argue that it is insane to make any changes to the design. The Cozy was an extreme design variation of the Long EZ. Taking an aircraft design from a "single wide" to a "double wide" is a big step. I think what I'm considering is more of a baby step forward, and evolution of the design instead of a revolutionary new design. That said, I still need to take the time to study the changes and make alot of flight tests at the end to verify that flight characteristics are still sound. I could spend 5 years building only to find out I have a propeller driven brick. I too wish the King Kozy had been finished and flown. Its certainly easier to follow someone else's work.

Just moved into a new house with a partial basement. The partial basement is for the GIB's stuff. The 2.5 car sized garage with the double wide door is mine. Now I can start building... well... once I get the GIB to quit spending all our money on new furniture! One thing I considered was a "Self Storage" unit. Do they have those on Maui? Cheep work space with an electrical outlet. Although I can get a T-hanger for $80 a month off a 5700 foot runway. One benefit of being 80 miles from civilization!

I wouldn't want to build a 10 seater... but a six would work well for me. How about a Limo-Cozy?

I'm sure he's tired of hearing all of the speculation. I didn't mean to pile on more. NTSB found the fuel selector position important enough to report it. I hope someone wouldn't mistakenly select the off position, and I don't want to be a fair weather quarterback... but then I just read a report about a Lancair IV that crashed on T/O because the pilot forgot to set his flaps. This was after looking at Wayne Hicks (I think it was his) site discussing failure prevention. I'm thinking out loud too much... Remember, not everything that shines is baloney! And Happy New Year!

It appears that he may have switched the fuel selector valve to OFF instead of RIGHT. NTSB started the engine up and ran it on the same fuel in the tanks at different power settings for 15 minutes. I don't like to think about all the different mistakes we can make while distracted on T/O or Landing. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031218X02056&key=1

... I read that part. But the design I remember had more of a delta wing shape to the canard. It also had the open nose for the jet air intake, and a more streamlined canopy. It did have the twin rudders mounted midway on the wings. I gues it was just a variation of the Shinden. The point of the program is that, current aircraft could not reach US bombers in time at altitude. The Jet powered aircraft would easily be able to climb to high altitudes quickly and shoot down approaching bombers. How would that have changed the war? How well would our Corsairs faired against them? A few more weeks could have made a huge difference.

The problem with creating another aircraft similar to the Starship is the fact that manufacturers are not dealing with rational customers. If Beechcraft could produce a prop pusher that traveled just as quickly as a jet on half the fuel, it would still be a tough sell near the same price as a jet. That's simply because if you have enough money, you buy a jet powered aircraft. Aircraft with exposed propellers are for people who can't afford a jet powered aircraft. Same with automobiles... look at who is driving what and why. The decisions rarely surround performance, efficiency, or anything rational. How many $80,000 W12 Phaetons do you think Volkswagen is going to sell? One example of irrational purchasing behavior I found funny... Boeing had some difficulty selling the 737 in the private corporate market until it relented to customer requests and added turned up wing tips. Apparently, some customers thought it looked cool, like a Lear or Gulfstream jet. It didn't matter what happened to efficiecy on the 737 design. I don't think the price of fuel going up will change this. So it takes $20,000 more to fly long distance... this is not a big consideration to the 9 figure crowd. What would be great is if they could get a Starship design priced around the King Air's price. That would be something they could sell.

Pretty! I wonder if we could convince Burt to draw up plans for those now that Beechcraft doesn't want them? I would need a bigger garage... but then I could have more than 2 kids!!!

Several months back I watched a program on the Discovery Wings channel that traced the progress of the jet engine during WWII. The most interesting part to me was how the design was given to the Japanese right before the end of the war. The Japanese came up with a canard design jet. (It looked like a sleeker version of the Shinden picture above.) It was only a few weeks away from production when Japan surrendered. That aircraft could have easily changed the direction of the war. Anyone run across pictures of it on your net travels?

First you say they only sold _a_ plane to Ferrari... now you quote assests were purchased in 1998... and now with the backing of Ferrari the company will go on... but nothing indicates Ferrari bought Avanti... Do you actually read what you type?

1999? Try for something a little more current.

If they would do a turbo 6 cylinder, I would rethink the rotary. My Father had an assortment of MB diesels that lived between 250,000 and 700,000 miles before he traded up. As long as the engine had a mechanical fuel pump, all the electronics or accessories could die but the engine would keep pumping. Definate "get you there and back" appeal. Mercedes quality has taken a dump since the eary 90's, but since they spend most of their effort fiddling with the gas engines, I would still trust the current MB diesels.

... oh, and they did sell the "whole shooting match" to Ferrari. Mr. Avanti couldn't get the plane in production (he has been trying since 1987) so he finally sold the "whole kit and caboodle" to a family board member of Ferrari who has placed it under partial control of Ferrari Corp. which is a subsidiary of Fiat Corp. With Ferrari investment, now the plane is in production. The whole story was in Flying magazine over the Summer. As you are so often fond of pointing out, web sites don't always contain accurate information.

Canards use their front wing surface for elevation control. The Avanti has a traditional rear T-tail with elevator. The lift usually generated by a single main wing is divided between a large thin rear wing (kept in the middle of the fuselage for airodynamic reasons but moved back for extra passenger space) and a smaller wing on the nose to assist with front lift. Technically the Avanti is not a true canard, but who cares. Its sleek, fast, efficient, and beautiful!

Hey wait... Atlanta is too busy. A winner could be determined by the luck of the air traffic que! Come up to Dammit GA! (KDNN just 80 miles north of Atlanta) No air traffic! We'll shoo the critters off the runway early in the morning, start the race, and tell tall tales where I'm the protagonist until the winner returns! I'll supply the BBQ and Fried Pork Skins. Whaddaya Say?!?!?!

Marc, I thought about the SQ2000 as well, especially since KLS is just a few miles away from where I live. I mentioned this to someone who's opinion I respect. (I won't mention his name because the company he owns does business with several Experimental kit manufacturers.) He has had the opportunity to fly many different aircraft and warned me about a couple of kit planes, the SQ2000 being one of them. It was nothing serious, like "the wings fall off after TO at which point the fuselage explodes." One thing I will repeat is that performance claims are highly suspect (a common issue with kit manufacturers) and certain verticle airfoil surfaces becoming wobbly at high speeds... (?) But I'm a hard headed individual, and since the SQ2000's appearance ranks way up there on the COOLNESS factor, I decided to check them out anyway. (I too like the jet fighter shape!) I called them up to get more information and schedule a time to visit the factory. After 1 minute of talking to one of the sales representatives, all sort of red flags started poping up in the dark recesses of my mind. Our conversation was more "time-share condo sales presentation" and less "cognito ergo zoom" than I wanted. I decided to wait and just take a look at what they had on display at Oshkosh. KLS was not at the airshow. Nat Puffer was. Nat puffer is definately the "cognito ergo zoom" type of person. I bought Cozy plans. That said, the SQ2000 may be an excellent aircraft. It will absolutely be the most beautiful thing parked on the tarmac. But if I were you I would wait until one of the SQ2000 builders finish their aircraft before shelling out the $50k. (Several appear to be close to finished.) Try to catch a ride in one, talk to the builder, and decide for yourself. (Taking a ride in the factory demonstrator does not count!) Maybe a few years down the road, this hard headed Cozy builder will be at Rough River envying your sleek ride. John!!! I was down in Orlando on 12/17 standing outside in the freezing wind at 10:00am wondering if today was the day! Guess not... keep us updated. I want to fly down there first thing when you feel comfortable about giving a ride! I'll supply the Fried Pork Skins. (Where's the nearest 7-11?)

I started looking at retractable gear options simply because most 200+ MPH planes have them. The best discussion I've seen about retracts is here... http://www.geocities.com/plmjohnson/retractable_gear.htm My only issue now is that the retracts at infinity seem a little pricey. I will probably use them anyway. I like the idea of one fuel source (the sump fed by the two tanks), a little higher speed, no-flip emergency landings, etc.

The Avanti design was purchased by and is in production with Ferrari corporate in Italy. It is not a true Canard, but who cares... its beautiful! It flys almost as fast as a jet, with half the fuel burn and less restrictive T/O & Landing minimums. It was at Oshkosh this year.

... "assembled from schematics." Oh the humanity!

... still waiting. Hey, you didn't say WHICH 7-11 John!

Just another reason I left Houston!

And I'm going to be in FL! How fortunate is that!

Or you could stay 240 like me (which I'm not staying) and not need ballast after dropping someone off!