No4

CSA - http://www.canard.com/~csa/

That looks wicked! Can you tell us what is under the cowlings? Any idea of performance? Is it based on the Long EZ? There is also the Defiant,

Aren't the colours as described by Art the wrong way around? It looks to me as if the red is low pressure, and the blue is high pressure. The tops of the wings are red, whilst below is yellow. It's hard to read the scale but it seems to say coefficient of pressure with 1 being dark blue and pink being -1.

Cheers Largeprime, I'm afraid that I still can't see what has you two so upset . I've re read my posts. I again take offense at your accusations of my implying these people are clueless. Please no more. I am genuinely interested in discussing this set up, but have had to fish for clues as to what was actualy being considered; and am still not sure. I was initialy surprised that Dust would consider this, as I thought the whole point of choosing a Lyc was for twin mags and all the usual. The original posts are very vague as to what he is planning to install, and it's only on the second page with your last post that you explain the system, and even then it is still murky. Furthermore, in Dust's original post he states that Tracy said the engine is set up on the ground because EGT probes are too unreliable, yet you seem to be stating that each cylinder gets a EGT probe and a MAP gauge. The fuel injection can give this engine no more horsepower as it is already limited by overboost. So that leaves us fuel economy, and smoother running. I have no doubt the engine will run much better with efi. How much fuel it will save, I guess around 2 gallons an hour at the very outside, probably more like 0.5 . My point was that if it costs $7000 to install all this then that would take about 2000 hours or more to pay you back. If however the cost is similar (still no ones told me), and the product is reliable, and it is lighter, then BRILLIANT!, I think it is a great idea, as I previosly stated. The plane sounds a real ripper with the CSU, turbo, and injection. As for reliability, if you trust Tracy then good for you. Sounds like a lot to potentialy go wrong down the track, with all these experimental sensors and actuators sitting in an area of high temperature and vibration. It also puts a greater requirement on the electrical systems reliability. Being amatuer built a simple wiring error could end in catastrophe. You can turn the masters off and still run happily all day with twin mags, a fixed or manual wastegate, and mech injection. I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion. I think the modern engine is quite different internaly to the lyc. Personaly I call it a dinosaur because it has 2 valves a cylinder, pushrods, single camshaft, can't take any boost, vibrates like buggery, is as loud as hell, sucks fuel and oil like it's going out of fashion, has cooling problems, reliability issues, and that's not to mention the ignition or injection. Cheers and Merry Christmas

I make it 125 gallons required for that flight, and what a trip! 13 hour legs will need lots of piss containers. I hope you are on good terms with your missus. You are really putting yourself up against it, attempting that trip in a homebuit single. It would probably be cheaper to go by airline. Two engines would be a MUCH better idea. A guy was recently stranded at Mcmurdo Base, Antarctica, after trying to fly from NZ to Argentina non stop in an RV-6, 33 hours endurance. He got to the south pole and had to return due to headwinds. A friend of mine had to ditch a Twin Otter about 100 miles off Hawaii on a ferry flight to NZ from the states. The fuel lines from the ferry tank were too small,they had to shut down an engine, and they were using the coffee flask to try to keep the fuel flow up. They ended up being rescued by a ship which took them straight back to San Francisco.

Any mix of Jet Fuel / Diesel, ie 100% one or the other. Jet A1 is dearer, possibly less calorific, but contains some chemicals to prevent gelling at low temp. Diesel is less expensive, has lower quality control, and is more prone to gelling. I think a Thielert 1.7 is less expensive than a Lycoming, and it includes a constant speed prop. The weights are very similar, I think. I plan to make my Cozy a two seater with long range tanks, 300 knots cruise at 25,000 feet, 1500 nm range, using either the VW V10 or Mercedes V8, it should consume 16.5 gph or less but we shall see!

Thielert Diesel http://www.centurion-engines.com/index.htm The Thielert diesels are becoming quite popular. They are offered new in some Diamond aircraft, as a retro fit for pipers and cessnas, and will be available for homebuilts. They come in two sizes, 1.7 135hp 4 cylinder water cooled turbocharged 135 kg complete with reduction drive and constant speed propeller drive $19,500 4.0 310hp V8 twin turbocharged 285 kg with psru and csu $48,000 The engines are certified conversions of Mercedes Benz auto diesels. They run on any mix of jet fuel and diesel. In identical aircraft an IO-360 uses 9.5 gph, whilst the thielert uses 5 gph. The range increased from 570nm to 750 nm. Speeds are the same at 130 knots. The lack of total horsepower in the 1.7 is apparently made up for by the high torque throughout the rev range, which leads to a similar horspower at cruise rpm in respect to the lyc. The V8 is due to be standard in the Gippsland Airvan, a plane similar to a Cessna 206 I used to dream about Mercedes making a V8 aero diesel, and now it's come true! I believe these engines are the future; efficient, low cost fuel, greatly reduced fire hazard, no ignition, probably very reliable. Still pretty keen on the V10 Volkswagen (400hp)and Volvo 5 cylinder(230hp) aswell.

Well I'm sorry you didn't like what we had to say, Dust, but if you are going to ask a question on an open forum... None of us implied these people don't know what they are doing, I'm sure my entire aeronautical knowledge is 1% of these guys. No one said this unit wouldn't work, or that it would not be beneficial to performance. Looking at light speeds product, if their figures are correct, then their system is far superior. But is it worth up to $3000 just for the ignition? Does it compare to the cost of new mags? Is it reliable, is it certified? How much extra is the fuel injection and wastegate going to be? If you think it's worth it then go for it! I really hope it works for you. For me that engine is a gas guzzling overpriced antique, and putting this stuff on it is dressing mutton as for lamb. By the way, not much of a rotary fan either (lights blue touch paper and slowly retires to a safe distance........) Enjoying the dream

Hallo Largeprime, Does this Continental EFI system actualy exist? Do those figures correspond to the Continental or were you refering to efi in general? 2 gph and more power sounds remarkable. I looked at Tracy's site, and couldn't see anything except for auto engine systems. The ignition, isn't this fixed to the magnetos? To control spark timing will you need to replace the mags? Am I right this system requires a new fuel control unit, injectors, electronic ignition, and an electronic wastegate? $ound$ expensive. You can buy a lot of avgas for $1500. I still can't imagine the big old six fine tuning itself as it goes along. Putting an experimental ignition harness onto it defies the point of using a certified engine surely? I think if you want good fuel consumption you need to go auto or diesel, for example at a local flying school they use the Diamond Star DA40 (like a carbon fibre cherokee) 130 knots with lycoming IO-360 9.5 gph, 570 nm range Thielert Centurion 1.7 diesel 5 gph, 750 nm range

I'm not totaly familiar with the factory set up. I thought it was mechanical fuel injection with fixed ignition from the magnetos? The magic box sounds great, but it also sounds like a weak link. Are you really expecting any performance gain? A lot of hard work for maybe 5hp or 0.5 gph better fuel consumption. Is it tested in icing and severe turbulence? The two mechanical levers linked to the MAP and EGT gauge by the Mk I eyeball are pretty reliable, and that's what thousands of pilots around the world use. It's not hard to avoid overboost, you just have to be sensible with the throttle, show some anticipation. The fuel flow couldn't be easier, use the settings from the flight manual, and then lean using the EGT gauge as necessary. This electronic device uses a ground setting anyway for the injectors. I think a lot of turbo planes are not used much because of the difference in operating a turbocharged engine. A turbo is not suitable as say a PPL trainer, all that opening and closing the throttle is bad for the engine. I'm told on descent you have to be very careful not to shock cool the motor, you need to slowly reduce power over 15 minutes if descending from altitude. The old Lycomings and Continentals can barely handle sea level pressure, giving them too much torque, heat or boost and it's hello trees. You seem a pretty conservative guy, choosing a Continental when everyone else is going auto, but hoping for individualy tuning cylinders on a 1930's engine, somehow I can't see it. I think it will be a world of headaches, and the possibility of it failing... I had a pipe from the intercooler come loose on my Skyline. It confused the electronic system so badly it just missfired and blew black smoke with a total loss of power, it cost me a set of plugs(platinum) and a new oxygen sensor. I heard of something similar happening in a homebuilt with a Subaru turbo. Simple old mechanical system is pretty hard to beat for me.

Is this device necessary? Dust I'm failing to see what benefit there is of this electronics. Surely it's easy enough to move the throttle lever to the desired manifold pressure setting, and the mixture lever to the correct fuel flow. Isn't the timing fixed to the magnetos, or do you have electonic ignition? What you want to achieve sounds possible with a lap top and a Jap turbo efi engine, but not the old Continental.

I found this which for me explained octane rating very well. "An octane rating (87 vs. 89 vs 92, etc.) is a measure of a gasoline's ability to resist detonation, which manifests itself in a pinging or "knocking" noise. Higher numbers indicate that the fuel can be compressed to a higher level before detonation / knock occurs in an engine, which occurs when. As described in "Detonation, Knock, and Pre-Ignition 101", detonation / knock occurs when air and fuel that is ahead of the combustion flame front ignites before the flame front arrives." http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?id=105 I was talking to a guy who used to fly the Super Constellation, DC-6, and DC-7. The 3300 bhp Pratt and Witney radials could only make that power with 150 octane rated avgas, and with 110 could only make 2750 bhp.

Dust, The non turbo twin with a IO-360's I drive uses, Take off full throttle (29"), Full rpm (2700 rpm), and mix rich. Climb (25"), 2500 rpm, 13 gph Cruise(24"), 2400 rpm, 11 gph Our Seneca has a fixed waste gate, and once climb power has been set, and the beast gains altitude, you have to actually start CLOSING the throttle to maintain power. This is because of the increased pressure drop across the exhaust turbine, causing it to spool faster. I think it is rated at 200 bhp at sea level, and 220 bhp at 5,000 feet. Ours never goes above 13,000 feet (no oxygen), but I presume there becomes a point when you start opening the throttle back up again, until ultimately you reach full throttle height. A Manual boost controller that you set and forget? That's a bit of a contradiction isn't it? Is that an automatic wastegate? Surely the throttle lever is your manual boost controller. I'd prefer a fixed or manual wastegate as per factory. Be careful of automatic wastegates for use at sea level. Remember that the turbo will be operating at altitude where at 25,000 feet it is 1/3 the air pressure at sea level. This means the turbine will spin faster and faster with a constant manifold pressure as you climb. Centrifugal compressors are only efficient between 75% and 99% of their design operating speeds. An incorrectly trimmed turbo would be as good as useless, and perhaps dangerous. If the compressor overspeeds, and the local air flow goes supersonic, you get a "lambda foot" shockwave forming in the housing, which basicaly ruins any compression available. (Same thing limits a big jet to travelling at Mach 0.8, except it's the flow over the wing). Mass flow (horsepower) decides compressor wheel size, so again this may require a variation with altitude.(????) I guess that an auto turbo might not be ideal for high altitude work. Yes you are correct about turbo race cars. They are more interested in acceleration, so use small turbos which spool up quickly. For high power autos they use two small turbos in series rather than one large one. The engines are designed to require lots of boost at sea level. A single large turbo is more efficient than two, and for it to be boosting at altitude, it must be capable of overboost at sea level. Looking forward to getting my rating in the Seneca beast, might have to grab some oxygen bottles...

Hallo mlefebvre, No one has probably replied to your post because it crops up often, and the theoretical arguments often end with people falling out, and the sensible people who build as per plans just want to talk about building. The highest IAS the Cozy will accept is around 230 mph. If you go faster than that things may drop off. The Berkut canard is made of carbon fibre and will accept 300 mph indicated. However you could modify a cozy to go to a higher IAS, but it would not be a cozy, it would be up to you to get it right. And if you are asking the question then my answer would be don't do it. Retractable gear is another option to reduce drag, but it increases weight perhaps, and adds complexity. A constant speed propeller doesn't add power, but adds efficiency, so it improves all performance, but they cost alot, weigh some, and are heavy on maintenance. Using an increased horsepower normaly aspirated motor (IO-360 to IO-540) will give better climb, and some increase in cruise. At altitude, True airspeed increases with a constant Indicated airspeed, so by supplying more power at altitude, which would require supercharging, you could maybe reach 350 mph, but then you have propeller problems, flutter problems, and of course you'll need oxygen. One builder has a jet engine in his previously rotary powered cozy mk3; The rutan's have a long-eze with a rocket engine, and another with a prototype pulse detonation engine, so anything is possible. As for aerobatics, the Boeing 707 performed two barrel rolls over a yacht regatta in Seattle before it entered service, and as Tex the test pilot explained to the boss when called in for an interview without coffee "It's a 1-G maneouvre Sir." I've seen Dick Rutan barrel roll his long EZ. Further aerobatics however may either exceed the G loadings and result in break up, or if you entered a deep stall, you might develop such massive sink as to never recover. Again I'd say if you are asking the question, don't do it. The best flight test report I have read is at http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/Cozy%20IV%20APR.pdf

sorry for my schoolboy error, no carb on an IO-360. Certainly sounds like a fuel flow problem or even ice in the air intake.

Sounds like carb ice, remember your carbheat as you cut the throttle! good old lycosaurus strikes again

I can confirm that kero heaters can stink to high heaven {especialy if run on jet fuel)and can leave a brown stain on all the walls like cigarette smoke, what it does to epoxy I don't know. Of course proper ventilation is neccessary and beware of Carbon Dioxide and monoxide, mono is worse, but you still suffocate on CO2. The more CO2 in the room, the more monoxide out of the burner. As far as the argument that there is no documented proof, and to quote an internet mailing list as the Bible is ridiculous. They never had all three hydraulic systems fail on a DC-10 until Sioux City. Better to be safe than sorry, and I would reccommend gas :D

For a Piper Cherokee Archer with the same engine we work on 35 litres per hour, or about 9.5 US gallons per hour at 75% power

Hallo Dust, At 40'f Avgas weighs 5.9 lbs per gallon, 30 gallons would weigh 177 lbs. 177 lbs of Avgas at 100'f weighs 5.6 lbs per gallon. Which now gives you 31.6 gallons of Avgas.

I vote for the nice shiny computer thing with twin turbos and gold cables, AND for Mr Slade to stay at the helm; I say this because a) he seems to know what he's talking about. b) he's got on and built a canard, not just dreamed about it. c) he's English. I guess the last one overrides all other arguments aswell. Watching the Rugby John?

I would be sorry to see this forum dissappear. It is a great source of information. As someone rapidly running out of excuses to start building, if it went now I'd really lose out. I'd be willing to slip a few bucks in an envelope, but would prefer to see it remain free. I agree that if it required a subscription traffic would drop off to a point that might not make it worthwile; and if it went commercial that may also ruin it. And where would I be without my old china Jim to tell me where I'm going wrong?

http://www.fiberglasstankandpipe.com/static.htm

http://www.atlasaviation.com/feature%20articals/donttakeanystatic.htm

Jim, You accuse me of treating the others on the board as "some kind of doofus neanderthals." I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion, and I must say that I am offended. Further more you have accused me several times of being " on instruments (in the sense that there is "no visual reference to the horizon when you have your head up your ass") "; and of course " At least nodding acquaintence with Mr. Newton would help too". It has been interesting to chat aerodynamics with you, as every criticism of my posts has led me to double check my workings, which I have found to be spot on every time. It seems from your replies that I should include a huge thesis every time I post. But then again I'm not sure you even read my posts, as reference in your last critique "There is no mention at all of Mach Number associated with propeller tip speeds at altitude". I wonder how many times I have to post that props become inefficient at 300 knots due to transonic flow on the tips. I have also discussed some of your posts with a 757 Captain, a 747 Flight Engineer, and several instructors, the reaction has been either a guffaw or a worried look. You also say "Everyone on this list is long since aware of the science you quote." I wonder if that is true? I some how doubt it. I havn't seen the like posted on this site. Judging by the questions from people like Dust and Marble I believe this to be true. Furthermore all that I know about you is that you are rude and arrogant as a person. As a self proclaimed expert you show little understanding of what is going with aircraft. From surfing this site I see that you have run out of fuel 6 miles from an airport, had another fuel emergency, narrowly escaped a burning aircraft, your velocity overheats, at idle you make 20 knots, your long EZ needs repairs from hitting a hangar after you hand started it with no brakes and full throttle, and, my personal favourite, that the doors fell off the Velocity you built yourself. (A paste of a post from another thread) "For hours of excellent entertainment, ask Jim about his experience with the gull wing door. His starboard door recently departed the airplane at 400 ft on take off and made a dent in the port strake. Come on, Jim - tell us the story about you fighting off flying sectionals and other cockpit debris while trying to recover the pax headset before it went through the prop. Reaching across you're body with you're left hand, while flying the airplane with you're right (from the left seat). Dont forget to mention the bit about recovering from a dive 50 ft from the trees. Oops. Sorry. Did I spoil you're punch line?" Enough said I think. You claim to be an ex Marine Corps Jet Jockey. I would say your abuse is unbecoming of an officer and gentleman, and that I have serious doubts of your claim to 4000hrs in the Cougar. As for holding a multi instrument instructor rating, I don't think so. I would suggest to all on this forum again that they disregard your advice. Can I name a 300mph, 300hp, light aircraft with a fixed pitch? Sure can! I'll give you a clue, http://www.berkutengineering.com/pages/aircraft.html Cheers

Cheers bro, I forgot to mention all those calcs for the weight didn't take into into account fuel burn, so even more fudge factor.