No4

Should have put it in before.. http://www.computercops.biz/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=58710 I'm sure for most of you computer wizards it is obvious and "a small change to the registry", but for me it was a dark and horrible journey to a place I never want to visit again, the registry.

From 18 months of research into the Cozy, I think you need just one thing DEDICATION after that everyhting else looks a cynch I'm making tentative plans to move into an extinct volcano, somewhere in the South Pacific, and beginning construction of "The Beast". Best of Luck Adam

I'm sorry to start this topic, as it is nothing to do with aircraft. I tried to slip the question in to the hierarchy thread, thinking that as we were all talking Microsoft software, and I am lead to believe a large number of you guys are either computer proffesionals or at least more knowledgeable than me, it was almost appropriate, and I was hoping to chat about it by PM. However, seeing as a few posts beforehand, I suggested we stick to the topic, I stand up, raise both hands above my head, and shout "I AM A HYPOCRITE!" It is something I've become used to, and not the worst of my character flaws. I'm not very good at fixing things unless it involves a) a piece of wire, b) a hammer, or c) a bigger hammer; so you can imagine my trouble with computers. ANYWAY! I picked up a new virus (or could it be a trojan blaster worm?), that defaults my browser to either nkvd(dot)us, or smart-finder(dot)biz. Any address you enter will go to one of these sites. It sets itself as your homepage, and adds to the favourites list. Deleting internet files, the favourites, and changing your homepage works after I run SpyBot but not Ad-aware. Problem solved? No, two days later same problem. Surfing some spyware forums, an expert identified the files which hide deep in the windows/system programs. I had a lot of trouble deleting the files, lots of access denied pop ups. SO, if anyone has trouble, PM me and I'll point you to the site that (may have)solved it for me. Please remove this thread if it should not be on this forum.

I was reading an article about getting massive horsepower into semi trailer tractor engines. They were increasing a Cummins six's output from 500 hp to 900 hp. This mainly involved a huge increase in boost. One of the problems they encountered was the flame burning a hole in the top of the pistons. They apparently sent their next set of pistons to be ceramic coated and there was barely any heat transfer to the piston, and they received improved efficiency from the exhaust turbine. Could I ask if anyone knows much about this? I think it was Mr cncdoc who also mentioned it. I think the process involved some sort of supersonic sand blaster with an arcing electrode at the tip. Secondly, I went to the local turbocharger shop, who deal in mainly Japanese rockets. The nice biker man with the turbocharged Harley told me they heat treat almost the entire engine, and I think it involved deep freezing, could I go so far as to say Cryogenic? Also any thoughts on Teflon? If anybody knows anything about the above I'd be grateful hear it, thanks. I'm planing on running some serious boost, and would like to deal with the problem now.

I'm a bit confused as to the problem. Are peole having a trouble with viewing the forum, or is it the canardzone.com website? Is the forum going to change appearance? Anybody any good with viruses? I think I have one in my laptop. Thanks

Ahh that's so touching, I'm all emotional, I think I'm going to cry.... Good Work Fellas! Thanks, I've learn't alot.

Sounds like a good idea Jim, A sort of ducted fan to aid cooling when without airspeed. For those using water cooled engines, we used to have a trick on the trucks I drove in Africa. I used to mount a garden hose about an inch away from the front of the radiator, about an inch down from the top. The hose had about 10 small holes in it, with a bolt as a plug in one end, the other end leading to a funnel in the cab. On a hot day,with a full load, climbing up a mountain road, the temperaure would often get to the red line. I kept a 5 litre container of water in the cab, and would pour some in. The temperaure would almost immediately drop to well in the green. Now I'm not suggesting we fly with garden hose, a bucket, and a funnel, but a simple electric water pump linked to a small tank and a piece of irrigation pipe with reticulation spray nozzles should do the trick superbly. The weight will be minimal when empty. How about a windscreen wash pump, tank and nozzles? To go one step further, you could rig a similar system to cover the intercooler, which should add some horsepower, and the oil cooler. I wouldn't like to comment as to whether you could spray an air cooled engine, because it might crack something. I understand this system is used on the Reno air racers. Going one step further again, I believe they inject a water/methanol mix into the manifold, to cool the cylinders and allow more boost, but I have no idea as to how one would set up such a system. A lot of gas turbine engines use this water injection system aswell.

Looks good Jon, I agree a lot of information is getting lost in the Coffee House. I'm probably more guilty than anyone, but threads which have started about say, the "Starship" ended up being a discussion on retractable gear, one on brakes ended as a discussion on props, and so on. Furthermore, some people don't seem to see eye to eye, and a few threads with some very interesting technical information have degenerated into several pages of bitching. Firstly I suggest we all try to sticking to the thread, and think we should agree that if the conversation changes topic, we move to that thread. Secondly I suggest we try to keep it technical and not try and get too emotional with our posts, but if someone feels strongly about something, fair enough. But in the instance of just two members having a go at each other over two pages of a thread, I think perhaps they should be encouraged to PM each other. God knows what anyone searching the archive might think! I subscribe to another Vbulletin forum, which is heavily moderated, whilst in no way am I suggesting you should delete or edit posts, I wonder how the members here would consider "partial" moderation. If a thread is started in the wrong topic section, it is moved to the correct section, but still appears in the old topic section with MOVED ... Clicking on this link takes you to the correct section. Secondly, in each topic they have a "STICKY" thread or two, which always remains as the top thread in that topic. In here they have useful website references, useful information, and rules of engagement in this thread. Things like the CAFE report, links to Infinity gear, engine suplliers, maybe a brief paragraph with some basic information, links to aerodynamics websites etc etc. There seem to be a lot of frequently asked questions. Best Wishes to all the members, and I thank you for your posts. I just can't describe how much I have learn't from this forum and your personal websites. I can't wait to get started! Cheers

Cheers Marc, I was scratching my head at that one aswell. I think you described it spot on.

Sorry for not being specific, I was implying not simply the roll, which of course would obviously have you in the same direction, but also rear stick as well to the point where a) one is close to tunnel vision / blacking out or b)one's paint/filler is about to come off the wing, or alternatively the Immelman with a verticle pull up. Anyway, I don't know how to calculated G loading, and that's the decider in slowing down/changing direction. Rubbish of me to suggest the roll rate had something to do with it. I understand completely what you say Jim, the wingover is the best way to turn around, short of an Immellmann or Stall turn, both of which I am unlikely to attempt in a Cozy. Thanks

I think I followed the same link as you Dust, and got the six blader. It looks absolutely nothing like the one I saw, but I guess it will work just aswell. The Club prop I saw had two blades, not more than 18 inches from hub to tip, was about 10 inches leading to trailing edge, and maybe 4 inches thick. I'd never know where to begin fabricating a six blade adjustable, but your the expert, good luck. Can't for the @#$% life of me find the photo, too many aero clubs and flying clubs for the search engine to work.

Thanks guy's it's all becoming clearer, I certainly hope I never get into the situation described by John, of trying to control any airframe whilst getting tunnel vision / blacking out. I've spent a fair bit of time "under the hood" in my IFR training, with some unusual attitudes, but I'd hate to try it anywhere near terrain. Shivers... I'm planning to do my aerobatic rating in a Citabria before easter, I guess by then I'll have a better idea. Looking at the CAFE report, it mentions 30' degrees per second roll rate. So either a) pulling a max rate would take 3 seconds to 90' bank, or b) pulling an Immelmann (sp?), which I'm lead to believe is the fastest way to reverse direction, should take 6 seconds for the 180' degree roll, or c) a wing over, again 3 seconds to 90'; it seems three seconds are required to be at 90 degrees to your original path of flight. 200 mph is 100 metres per second, so even from high cruise the Cozy should be able to turn 90' in 300 metres or less. What Jets did you boys used to drive? Jim was it the A4 Skyhawk? John, I'm guessing anthing from the Hunter to the Tornado or Jaguar, or perhaps the Hawk? Please don't say the Lightning, as I might die with envy. I agree about the skid pan training, I once had a very pleasurable afternoon in a matt green MK Bedford 4 tonner ( one, for the use of) performing donughts and hand brake turns on a concave skid pan which a nice man with an anger management problem had kindly sprayed with diesel and water.

OK Jim, how about look at the AH, go for blue up, brown down, nose up ten degrees, and KITT Turbo boost! I really wish I hadn't mentioned the mountain, or the clouds, for that matter. It's just that in one ear I'm hearing Berkut drivers blacking out at 9 G, yet in the other ear, pulling the hardest manouevre I can think of, from 200mph, only results in me stalling inverted at 20mph. I'm guessing there's some middle ground. I heard of a Long EZ climbing in a steep turn, that sort of information can save your life. I also stress I have no intention of playing silly buggers in a Cozy, but it's good to know what it is capable of. From the CAFE report I see it rolls to a similar rate to a Cessna 152, thats good enough for me. For a good look at the 747 beast laying a tidy bit of wake turbulence, check out the attached photo

Thanks Jim, Better some filler, a new paint job, and a new set of underpants than controlled flight into terrain for yours truly.

I don't know the FAA regulations, but here in NZ, tower is responsible for separation of IFR and VFR. Tower should have separated the Velocity. Here they are very strict on it. At take off we wait 2 minutes for a heavy turboprop, and 3 minutes for a heavy jet. When landing behind a jet, it is possible provided you follow a lower or higher trajectory than the jet, and pick a different landing point. I know an Air New Zealand 747 Captain who almost had a mid air with a drug running Beech King Air, on approach into Los Angeles. The King Air passed close behind into the 747's wake and was smashed to smithereens. The Airbus that lost it's rudder and crashed into Queens (?) was experiencing wake turbulence from a preceeding 747. Wake turbulence is a monster not to be underestimated, and can affect any aircraft. My advice is to keep well clear of the path of the heavies, and if you think ATC are calling you in too close, tell them to get stuffed, they work for you. Back to Cozy MkIV, Just to confirm from high speed (200mph) it is possible to pull a max rate to the limit of my consciousness, which will a) slow me right down, and b) have me going in the opposite direction, and the wings won't fall off? Edited to say, I see you're editing as well Jim, No intention of ever being so silly, but better to prepare for the worst case scenario. Is the roll rate really that slow?. Would full power, full rudder with stick hard over and back not allow a fairly good attempt at reversing direction?

I absolutely, utterly, completely, agree Dust. I'm now to the point where I wonder why so few have tried turbocharging. As for the Oxygen mask, it is not such a simple leap of faith, going hypoxic is very dangerous indeed. A few business jets have experienced un detected de-pressurisations, and simply fly on until they run out of fuel. Who was that golfer? Was it Payne Stewart? Plus I hear you can get the bends, and severely damage your eyesight up at those pressure levels. The air might be -40'C, but being very thin cooling can be marginal, but I think the higher TAS may compensate with proper ducting. However the reduction in drag is a major bonus, you sit high above all the terrain and cr@ppy weather and icing, and with a 100 knot tail wind you might see the GPS reading 400 mph. I think if my calculations are correct, 300 mph True requires 200hp continuos at 25,000 feet with an Indicated airspeed of 200 mph in a Cozy MkIV, at standard weight.

Thanks for that, So +10 and -6, that sounds very strong indeed. I agree that any more +6 or -3 would be un bearable. After three inverted loops, followed by an inverted stall turn, in the Pitts, it was all I could do to not unleash the contents of my entire digestive system over the canopy. I felt all my organs trying to fight their way out of my mouth. I weigh about 200 lbs, so must have experienced about 300 lbs on each shoulder strap. Not Nice! Back to the Cozy MkIV, am I right that it's G loading will exceed the abilities of the pilot? If so, in the case of say, being in IMC and suddenly seeing a mountain fill the windshield, is it capable of pulling a 6 G max rate turn to avoid collision with terrain, or is the canard not capable of such a manouevre? Thanks in advance,

Hi Jim, I was waiting for you to get here, 1/ 3.5 is the upper end of centrifugal compressors ability, there best efficiency is around 2 to 2.5 :1. 20,000 feet is 466 hpa. You could be right, and it may work up to 35k plus, I hope so. 2/ Yes Yes the prop from hell, I like it. If I can afford the Thielert, (which is unlikely) I'd be a fool to dump the CSU. I've been working on a fixed pitch prop for the Volkswagen V10, it makes 400 hp at 4000 rpm, and 230 hp at 2000 rpm. I'm planning a reduction drive of 3:1. If the prop is designed for 300 mph at 1300 rpm, it should be good for 150 mph at 700 rpm. At this speed it will be delivering 230 hp, 50 hp more than a standard I0-360 with a prop set for 200 mph at the lesser horsepower. 3/ Yes Yes Oxygen all the time, not planning a big heater, but wooly socks, mplafleur's heated motorcycle suit combined with a pressure suit, furry leather jacket, silk scarf, goggles, and a nice leather flying helmet. I might go as far as to rig a pipe directly from the compressor outlet to pump any unused hot air from the turbo. 4/ Yes Yes the Thielert is expensive, but it is certified, and comparing it to the Lyco I think it might be cheaper. I'm sure you could either not junk it at 2000 hrs, just rebuild it yourself, or build your own auto conversion, and then we are into the price range of the Rotary. Mercedes Benz, Volkswagen, Volvo, Peugot, all make diesels which are now light enough to fit in a plane. 5/ Plenty of Thielerts flying down here, the flying schools love the 130 hp motor, with orders for the V8 to go into the sightseeing Cessna 206's at Queenstown. Fuel figures show a saving of 10 litres an hour in a similar aircraft for the 130 hp. All the businesses have worked out it pays for them to go diesel. 6/ Diesels have twice the compression ratios of gas engines, rings are usualy the first to go, then the head. It's expected, I won't be surprised by it, I'm already planning to replace the rings at regular intervals.

Clifford I agree, anyone who attempts this has got mush in his head. My friend Cookie drives the Pitts Special at Queenstown, and I never met more of a mushy headed fellow. Pulling 6 positive was awful but 3 negative was the worst moment of my life. I kissed the ground when we landed. Sorry for not reading all the newsletters, subscribing to all the other forums, or searching the archives, but can anyone tell me the positive G-rating of the Cozy MkIV? I heard mention of 9 G's in the Berkut beast. P.S. I promise not to try this at home

Largeprime, I havn't done the maths, but I think comparing a V8 to a four cylinder, at the same rpm, the pistons will be smaller and lighter and travelling at a slower speed. Plus this force is split over 8 cylinders so more harmonic for the crank, whereas a 4 cylinder lyco will have heavier pistons which need to accelerate and decellerate to/from greater speeds in the same timeframe, and experience a more uneven load. The 2 stroke diesels definitely need forced air to scavenge the cylinders. The four stroke will run better with more boost, also no need for wastegates or dump valves, let it pump as much air as it likes. I'm sure special turbos can produce more than 3:1, that F1 engine sounds like 7:1, but most charts I have seen for turbos have a compression ratio of 0 to 3.5 on the vertical axis, and mass flow rate along the horizontal.

I think he wants to hop FROM Hawaii ! 300 knots at FL 250, it's only 7 hours. I see the attachment of the tanks on the EZ that went from Switzerland to Cape Town kind of hook over the leading edge, makes sense looking at it. Belly cargo pods are popular on planes like the Caravan, and I've seen wingtip tanks and baggage pods. Supposed to be good for the induced drag aswell.

Nativespirit, In case you havn't guessed I'm firmly in the aero diesel camp. The Thielert Centurion turbo diesel aero engines come as a 135hp or 335 hp unit. They are based on Mercedes 4 cylinder and V8 engines. They are turbo normalised, standard with constant speed propellor (improved take off at altitude),no spark plugs, no risk of detonation (in fact when it stops detonating you start to worry!), run on cheap diesel or Jet fuel, and the decider for me, a much less flammable fuel source in the event of an accident. Going into Theory land, actually the finest supercharging system is the turbo compound recovery system as seen in DC-7's and on the Connie. A two stage supercharger fed air into the 3350 cu in radial producing over 3000 hp, and in the exhaust a turbine was linked by a hydraulic gearbox back to the crankshaft. The turbine was installed to try and trap the heat, and dampen the flames that were frightening the passengers. Regarding the reduction drive, 1, If a 360 cu in Lycoming with vintage injection system can achieve 180 hp at 2700 rpm, then I'm sure a Chevy 350 cu in can match it. 2, My Nissan Skyline with an RB25DET (2.5 turbo six, 24 valve, 350 bhp) howls at 5000 rpm, and sounds and behaves like it is the ideal rpm, at 2500 rpm she does not sound so happy. The pistons are changing direction more often at higher rpm, but twice the number of cylinders means a shorter stroke, so piston speed is halved. I think the piston speed of a V12 Merlin at 2500 rpm is faster than a 1100 Kawasaki at 11,000 rpm. 3, Whilst I agree entirely a psru adds weight, becomes a maintenance factor, sucks shaft horsepower, there are some advantages. The Lycoming / Continental's propellers are mounted directly onto the engine's crank. Any forces or vibrations are felt right through the engine. A psru can act as a dampner between the prop and the engine. Also the gears inside it must be the weakest link . As we discussed in the retractable gear thread, a gear up landing results in the likely death of a lyco/conti motor. I can't back this up, but I imagine the shearing of the teeth might save the engine. This could also apply to bird strike or the prop shedding a blade. Also, judging by the latest turboprops, it appears a slower spinning propeller at 1200 rpm is advantageous to the traditional 2500 rpm, which I suppose is only decided by the Lyco's.

Surely it would be quite a simple operation to make a bracket to which the fuel pods could be bolted, and when removed a blank plate bolted in place. You weren't planning on having drop tanks surely? Then use a simple fitting with a tap and connector to link the fuel system when the tanks are connected.

I think the engines specific fuel consumption is 1lb fuel per lb of thrust. So at 200 mph I think the Cozy requires around 200lb of thrust meaning 200lb/hr of Jet fuel, or 30 usg/hr, 90kg/hr, 110 litres/hr. More at take off / climb power. I doubt if he can exceed the 230 Indicated Vne, but climb performance must be something else. Pretty thirsty beast, but what fun!! Interestingly the Walter gas turbines in the Lancairs turboprops, are about half as fuel efficient as a reciprocating engine.

Just picking nits with a couple of earlier posts, there is only one turbine in a turbocharger. The exhaust gas exits the exhaust manifold and drives a turbine, the turbine is connected via a shaft to a centrifugal compressor. Native Spirit, At 8,000 feet you definitely need a supercharger or turbosupercharger to name it correctly. A centrifugal compressor is a flat circular disc with a series of vanes or fins if you like on it's face. As it spins at many thousand rpm air is accelerated off the ends of the vanes into the casing. The speed causes compression in the casing and on into the manifold. A centrifugal compressor has an effective compression ratio of up to 3.5 to 1, and the air mass flow rate, or horsepower, decides the size of the wheel. ie big turbo big hp; small turbo small hp. So if you "turbo normalise" an engine not usualy turbocharged, it provides no boost at sea level, and then maintains sea level pressure until the ratios drop below 3:1. What does this mean? well, a simple turbocharger will maintain you sea level power to about 20,000 feet (critical altitude), and then the power drop off will be the same as a non turbo climbing from sea level. 75% power will be available at 25,000 feet. The turbocharger actualy becomes more efficient in an aircraft at altitude, because on one side it still has the same mass flow of air at the same high temperature, yet on it's outlet side the static air pressure is 1/3 (at 20,000) sea level pressure. Hence a greater pressure ratio, and more work done by the compressor wheel. Choosing an engine that requires boost at sea level, and the critical altitude is reduced. Choosing a NA engine and adding a turbocharger, you have to be very careful not to overboost the engine at lower altitude. The continental and lycomings use low compression piston to allow for some boost, and even then require careful engine management. http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/turbo/turbo.pdf TURBOCHARGER Vs SUPERCHARGER A supercharger can be of several types, but each basicaly compress and pump air, the compressor being driven by the crankshaft. Once the compressor has been sized, and it's optimal rpm decided on, it is relatively straightforward to match the gearing from the crank to the compressor. Horsepower from the crank is used to drive the compressor. On the exhaust side there is no restriction, so heat build up in the exhaust manifold, at the head, in the valves is not such a problem. The effects of altitude cause the exhaust gasses to flow much easier from the exhaust ports, and therefore as the piston (rotor) rises to exhaust the gases less resistance is met, so a slight reclaim of the hp taken by the compressor. A turbocharger as previously described is driven by the exhaust gases, and mainly utilises the rise in heat of the exhaust gases which would otherwise have been wasted. It is harder to get the sizing of the turbine and compressor just right. A centifugal compressor works best between 70 and 95% of it's designed rpm, outside these speeds it is practicaly useless. The turbine chokes the exhaust causing back pressure, and a rise in temperature at the valves and head. A gas turbine engine can be made from a simple truck turbocharger, they have a burner can instead of cylinders for the combustion process. It is generaly proven that a turbo is much more fuel efficient than a supercharger.