No4

Fair point about the props Marc, On the other hand, if top speed is a function of blade angle/length/and rpm; then by putting retracts on a cozy, but not changing the prop, you might not actualy increase top speed at all. However as I previously stated, it is possible to tune a fixed prop just right. Perhaps it would be more correct to compare a Cozy with CSU and fixed gear and a Cozy CSU and retracts. Either way 30 mph sounds fair. As the question also refers to fuel economy, and engine performance, the csu must play an important part. Either way I still stand by my prediction of equal performance to the Lancair (which one is it again?).

OK, no more editing! Yes I concur plus 30 mph, with appropriate reduction in mpg. I would add that a simple turbocharger (and oxygen mask) is far superior to all of the above!

oranges and tangerines? Are a csu and retracts worth 27 mph? I would think they could be, Wouldn't that bring the MPG figures to the same number? As to the split, very tricky. The csu prop is constantly varying it's pitch to account for its rpm, the torque supplied, the TAS, the IAS, and the atmospheric conditions. A fixed prop can be tuned to the same efficiency, but only at one set of the above. The variable pitch will be heavier. But it guarantees better climb performance and over a range of speeds, altitudes, and temperatures, it will be superior. An engine attached to a csu maintains optimum rpm and manifold pressure. An engine attached to a fixed pitch prop sees it's rpm and manifold pressure all over the place, very often at a non ideal setting. My guess for a Cozy IO-360, plus 15 mph at 8000 feet. The gear in the Arrow is a heavy contraption, but you can just "feel" the reduction in drag. As the gear comes up, you get noticeable acceleration. If you set the prop to full coarse (least drag) it glides fantasticaly. I understand that at higher IAS the parasite drag outways the induced drag, so top end drag should be greatly reduced. My guess for a Cozy IO-360, plus 15 mph at 8000 feet. Just my rough guesses, ready to don flack jacket and goggles but I'm willing to back plus 30 mph, if not more.

Thanks for taking the time to reply again Largeprime. I was realy surprised by this system. What is on offer does look very good, with much smoother running apparently.... "starts like a turbine" claims aerosance. The TIO 360 is already capable of churning out more than 220 hp, it's just it is liable to go bang, but I can see that the improved induction, ignition could allow a few extra hp. I still mention that as a fuel saving exercise if it costs $5000 to install, that could buy me 10000 litres of go go juice instead. But from an engineering and performance view point it is excellent. Look forward to seeing it operate in anger!

It's an interesting conundrum comparing apples and oranges. If you are comparing airframes, you have to use identical gear, prop, and engine. Comparing one plane with fixed gear, fixed prop, and a carburretor at one weight to another with retracts, constant speed prop, turbo and injection at another weight is misleading. The CAFE Lancair 320 has 170hp, retracts, and a csu, is only a two seater and weighs less than a Cozy. If you compare the Piper Cherokee series, Archer 180hp, fixed prop, fixed gear 125 mph Arrow 200hp, constant speed, retracts, 155mph Turbo Arrow 200hp, constant speed, retracts, 200mph All speeds TAS. All could be called Cherokee 360's. So, to compare Airframes, I still believe that with similar engine, undercarriage, prop, and weight, the Cozy airframe comes very close to the others, also being a four seater when most of the others are two. Canards should be more efficient because canard lift is required to maintian straight and level, whilst a plane with a tail may require some downforce on the elevator surface.

I stand corrected, apologies for talking bollox.

I guess we killed the starship thread, but what the hell.... I was listening to a Flight test engineer give a talk recently, he was talking about the different approaches used by Russian aircraft designers, and British. He said the Brits usualy start from scratch, and there is lots of re inventing wheel going on along the way. The Russians keep a huge database of what has been tried before and how succesful it was, and you only start designing something new if it hasn't been done before. He said he was talking about an unusual Spitfire radiator system to some of them and this guy jumped up and came back with an enormous book of radiator designs with the system right there. Well thanks guys, you are my Russians! I've pretty much come to the same conclusion as you Marble, run a bandsaw down the middle and widen the whole thing. It appears a reasonably basic modification. The drag will increase, but I don't know how to calculate it accurately. Your parasite drag will increase, and also some induced drag. But it should also now be a bit more of a lifting body, so the lift to drag ratio will not be so badly affected. Definitely more horsepower required, but the rotary should easily cover it. The difference between an Ez and a Cozy is 40 hp, so another 40, ie 220 hp should easily cover it. Just to be sure I'm going for 400 hp. I don't want to stretch the fuselage at all, but considered it from a weight and balance point of view because I plan to have such a heavy engine hanging out the back. I don't think it will be neccesary. I plan for mine to be a two seater, with the rear seats converted to luggage space, long range tanks, and mount the radiator, intercooler, and oil cooler there also. Thanks for the advice John (she's looking good ) and thanks and yes Jerry I'm 6'4 and 220lbs. I initialy was a great tout for retracts and constant speed props, and from a theoretical point of view they are much superior. But the gear is expensive, and I would constantly be worrying if it was working or not. For me the weight, complexity, and reliability are not worth it. I'd love a constant speed prop, but to get one for auto engine is hard/ impossible, and the ones I have seen require lots of expensive maintenance, after a large initial outlay. I've decided to spend all my money on horsepower (decisions, decisions), I think that is the most cost effective way for me to satisfy my need for speed .

I agree with Jim and Largeprime, With identical engine/prop the Cozy will equal or better the performance of the others, even to the point where it might beat an IVP, but no ones built one with a TIO 540 yet. In the EZ Cozy IFR battle, both are equaly capable, but the side by side Cozy must win hands down over the EZ for operation of an IFR panel, especialy two crew.

Don't know if you are serious marble, but I have been pondering that problem very hard. I desperately want to stick as per plans, but the cozy is just too small for me. I've been working on widening and lengthning the fuselage, but it's a recipe for disaster. What to do with the wing, rudders, landing gear and canard??? A set of Defiant plans are mine for the taking, but they say 6000 hours to build the bugger. Life is tough with these difficult decisions! The King Kozy's website hasn't been updated for several years, it would have been interesting to see that fly. Back to the aerodynamics text book!

Beeeyoutiful sunny day here in the high 80's, just back from riding my motorbike along the beach, went a bit silly in the forest afterwards and am now nursing a very nice set of cuts, grazes and a sore knee. How is New Jersey? (I'm hoping it's freezing cold and you are really jealous). I'm a firm believer in the "if it looks right, it'll fly right!" design philosophy; when I saw the video of the Sea Dart I just thought no, no, no what were they thinking! A bit like the Boeing VTOL beast at the moment, and I have my doubts about the new JSF aswell. A link to Canard Jet Fighters, the whole site is devoted to "strange machinery", fantastic stuff. http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/canard.htm Here's the link for other canards, very impressed by the Henschel. http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/ente.htm I think the Nazi's were responsible for some of the finest aircraft designs ever known. It's not a canard but my favourite is the Dornier 335, a push-pull fighter bomber, that if it had made production would have destroyed our Spitfires, Mustangs and all the bombers they were protecting .

There is an Aerocomp 10 seater (similar to Grand Caravan) on floats with a Walter turbine that operates out of Nelson, NZ. Very nice rig. There is a monster taildragger called a Sherpa ( I think) with an IO-720 that seats 8 also for sale as a kit. A homebuilt turbofan or business turbo prop for commercial ops is a bit different, it's speed will be limited by Mach number, requiring very high external finish, and internaly there is the undercarriage, very expensive engines, powered flight controls, anti ice, pressurisation to 40,000 feet and some serious avionics to install like weather radar, tcas, inertial nav systems, auto pilots, and flight management computers. To build it yourself and sell it your skills and knowledge would have to be to an extremely high level. Unlikely to be popular with the hoi poloi who sign the cheques. However to homebuild a 10 seater for experimental use , if you knew what you were doing, would be no harder than building two cozys. It's cost and time would be proportional to how complex, how fast, and how high you want it to be. Burt pulled out of selling plans because of lawyers sueing him every time an EZ crashed; with 8 dead rich folk alot of lawyers would be after you. The Starship won't be re engineered with jets, but Burt has several composite turbofan and prop designs on the go. The Avanti is not so dissimilar, in fact the three flying surfaces can be considered superior to the canard.

Cheers Chuck, I'll put it in my diary!

Mark and Marble, There is always the PM button, or you could start a new thread. no one cares! Crashdog, The trouble I think is getting people to buy the damn thing. Commercial aircraft are notoriously conservative, look at an Airbus 340 compared to a 707, or a Jetstream 31 to a DC-3, it's hardly evolution. Airbus and Boeing are now switching to composites for their airliners and with Burt's innumerable outstanding successes, several of his designs are actualy going into certified production now. Boeings Sonic Cruiser (a canard) didn't receive any orders, and they have been sitting on a blended wing body for years. As far as the Starship goes, it doesn't really outperform the Beech King Air by very much, if at all, and that is it's stable sister. If however with these difficult times in the Middle East, and there were some sort of oil crisis sending Jet fuel costs sky high, I expect to see many highly aerodynamic aircraft such the Starship appear, and my crystal ball prediction is that they will use diesel engines. I think it is human nature that once a few airlines start to use these design, then everyone will follow , and take them for granted. I get quit excited about the thought of a Starship with twin 1500 hp diesels sitting on the ramp waiting for me to press the loud button.

"....Of the few items to be corrected was the strong torque pull to the right on takeoff and noticeable vibration in the propeller and its extended drive shaft. Solutions were underway to correct these problems, but both would have been negated by the planned use of the 1 ,984 Ib thrust Ne 130 turbojet for an advanced model which was to have been the J7W2 Shinden Kai. " or it could be the Mizuno "Sinryu" Type 2 Rocket Intercepter http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/on/shinryu/shinryu.htm

Come on guys! Who gives a monkeys who owns Piaggio? That clique will all be in bed together, it doesn't really matter who owns it on paper. As far as the definition of a canard goes, it depends who is writing the dictionary. Some say it must have a fixed "tail" at the front, some say a fully moving forward elevator is not a canard, and some that a big fore wing like Proteus becomes a tandem wing aircraft. It's only words. At the risk of mentioning the Starship again, here she is leaving Farnborough, England, what a beauty...

Even the russians have been at it aswell http://angela.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/mig-8.html

Curtis Wright XP-55 Ascender known affectionately as the "ass ender" only three ever made http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp55ascender.html

Cheers Jack, That must have been the Convair XF2Y-1 Sea Dart you were working on? I saw something on Discovery that pretty much rubbished the idea, but I read it was through a lack of funds and requirement it was scrapped. Thanks Phil, Thats an interesting design, 100 mph on 25 hp is incredible. I like this bit "....after testing a dozen small propellers of wood, aluminium and carbon fibre, with costs ranging to hundreds of dollars. The prototype ended up using a commercial PVC airconditioning fan blade which at the time cost $5.00." Here's a couple from Focke-Wulf of the German 1930's, George Wulf died testing the F19 http://www.luft46.com/fw/fw42.html#F19a

1 X 13b turbo rotary (reconditioned)= $1500 8200 / 1500 = 5.5 You could have reconditioned 5 times, and have had an engine of double the hp every time. My mate has a '75 rotary mazda that still lays some serious black lines about the neighbourhood. 13bt vs 0-290? no contest! touche?

Mike Bowden's twin Long EZ certainly looks the part. It carries twin 80hp Jabiru engines, I wonder what would happen with twin TIO-360's?

The Eagle 150 is a three surface GA plane like the Avanti, with an IO-240 in the front. http://www.eagleaircraft.webcentral.com.au/

Vincent Burnelli made some very different designs, utilising the "lifting body" concept, supposedly the CBY-3 almost beat the DC-3 to the USAF's WWII contract, and only missed out due to politics. The GB-888A was just a design, but I like it! http://www.eu.aircrash.org/burnelli/chrono2.htm

Piaggio P.180 Avanti Currently made in Italy, half metal, half composite, half T tail, half canard 395 knots at 41,000 feet http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=295 http://www.piaggioaero.com/ Piero Ferrari (of the red car company) is Chairman of the Board of Directors of PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES.

The Japanese tried to introduce the Kyushu Shinden (Magnificent Lightning) in 1945, but were (thankfuly) too late. "The Shinden was an all metal airplane with a 2,000 hp Mitsubishi Ha 43-42 eighteen cylinder aircooled radial engine mounted in the rear, driving a 6-blade propeller" http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/shinden/

The Boxer LDA1 was designed for STOL use in Africa by an ex RAF Hawker test pilot. 160 hp, 130 knots, 6 passengers. http://www.aircrew.org.uk/woking/W_News161001.html