cncdoc

Why yes, almost all EFI systems use the crankshaft position sensor which indicates TDC and strangely enough, or should I say, more importantly, the position of the ports. Because the rotary engine ports correspond to valve timing in a recip engine, the crankshaft position sensor is the timing point used by the EFI computer to tell the injectors when to release and in some cases, how long to allow flow. As the RPM increases, the on / off state of the injector becomes very close, so it's important that there is enough pressure behind it to effect a timed release. There is a whole discussion of it here:http://www.yawpower.com/dectech.html It basically covers most of what I wrote above. Timing in a rotary is where the ports start and end. But, you knew that.

Personally, I like it when everybody says what they feel and they are allowed to do so. There are other forums which are heavily moderated and the posts are like the "South Park' kids on ritalin. My Dad used to get on my case because I was using a crescent wrench as a hammer. The crescent wrench worked as a hammer but it was designed for something else. Now, my Dad was firm but nice about my using a tool improperly. I saw another Dad really ream his kid for doing the same thing. It's just how we express ourselves according to our experience in life and our education. So, some of us are going to be quite adamant about seemingly minor points of canard aircraft building and others will be more non-chalant. A homebuilt aircraft can be an extremely satisfying project. You get to fly it after you build it. It can be quite fun or you could die in it. So, as the poets say, "Therein lies the rub". To inquire along the lines of potential flight activity that may put aircraft (a pet "priority" project that some have spent years of their life on) in danger : using it in a flight activity for which it was not intended or designed for, may conjure up in such builders' minds an unpleasant picture, much like my Dads ruined crescent wrench. But, mostly they are trying to help with your expectations. Any disappointment can cause one to put off or delay building activities or foregoe it altogether. Better to not start at all than to not finish. So cut 'em a break. I do. We're just trying to help (in our own way) Enjoy the Forum

I was just in Silver City NM the first of December visiting some friends. There sure was a lot of hills and valleys and it seemed like everyone was at least 4000 to 6000 ASL. So I can understand the desire for SL performance at 8500+. There are numerous sites with information about turbo chargers and superchargers. For details about the theory and the particular model (roots vs centrifugal) I would peruse one of the more technical (not trying to sell you) sites. The idea is that 1. There is a perfect mixture of fuel to air that will make the most power. 2. The more of this mixture you can get into your combustion chamber, the more power you will have. 3. There will always be a small amount of burnt gases in the combustion chamber which will not burn, the less of these gases allowed,(more valves, headers, turbo charging, exhaust porting) the more "perfect mixture" you can force into the combustion chamber = even more power. 4. Carburetors use the velocity enhancing effect of a venturi to suck the fuel from the bowl and mix it with the incoming air. There is no timing aspect and predetermined jet sizes govern mixture at above idle speeds. Turbos and Superchargers don't go well with carbs as the mixture under pressure is a long way from the valves and combustion chamber. Some times the intake manifold becomes a combustion chamber. Enter fuel injection. throttle body FI is located at the same place as the carb with the same limitations as the carb when it comes to coupling with a turbo (or SC). Newer TBI out performs most carbs because the mixture is easier to control. Port Injection has become quite popular because the fuel injection spray can be timed electronically with the opening of the valve and the air forced through the port at high velocity helps the mix become more even and go further into the combustion chamber. This = more power. Direct combustion chamber injection isn't as common in gas engines, but it is used mainly in diesel engines. 5. Turbo chargers have 2 turbines (centrifugal blade type) the exhaust gases turn one and, sealed off on the other end of the shaft, the other turbine is pumping air into the intake system. Advantages: At high RPM the turbo gives more power than it uses and is more economical (and quiets certain engines)Can boost power at high altitudes. Disadvantages: Low rpm, low power. Cost. has to be matched to EFI system and timing. Needs cool air (compressing heats air, hot air is less dense, less air to mix with fuel, weak mixture = less power) 6. Supercharger. Belt driven (usually roots type but also centrifugal vane type for high rpm boost) Pump that forces air into the intake system. Advantages: No wait for boost. Flat power curve for energy used. No exhaust stuff to worry about (turbo bearings). Disadvantages: Same as the turbo except low power at low RPM. Cost more and heavier. So, the amount of air forced into the engine isn't important. It's the amount of clean mix that makes it into the combustion chamber that gives the power. Spark timing and valve (or port timing in a rotary) are very important to getting the most out of a turbo or SC engine. It's not just a piece you bolt on, but it is a whole modification to the ignition, timing and induction/exhaust system that makes it work. One more thing. V8s V6s other auto engines: Are quite reliable, but (and this is my opinion) have the same weaknesses as reciprocating aircraft engines. Many moving parts, high rpms (in auto engines to attain high HP) piston changing directions many times every second. All engines develope heat, but most auto engines are liquid cooled and are heavier than their airborne cousins. If you can find an engine that turns about 2800 RPM (as fast as you should ever turn a normal prop) and developes about 180 to 200 HP and burns about 9 or 10 gallons an hour and weighs less than 350 lbs.......then go for it (and let us all know how you did it) but generally most auto engines find their HP high up the RPM range. Have you ever ran your car engine at 5000 to 6000 RPM? At 70 mph most vehicles are between 2700 and 3500 RPM. So imagine running a small block V8 5500 RPM everywhere you go. You also have to have a reduction unit to reduce the RPMs to something the prop can use. So, that's why many don't go that way. But, some engines, like the rotary, don't mind going 6000 rpm all day, and there is 3 moving parts, nothing changes direction and it is small and light. This is an over-simplification of the theory involved, I didn't get into turbo-charged and turbo-normalized either (this post is long enough) but I hope it helped a little to explain what walls you run into when you think of alternative powered aircraft. Kevin

I too was considering a non-turbo, non supercharged (supercharging has the advantage in spooling up and low end power, not really advantageous in aircraft) 13B. But from the reports I seen and HEARD.....the rotary unmuffled makes quite a lot of noise, too much to leave unmuffled. I am still trying to armchair quarterback my own team on this one. The turbo sufficiently quiets the beast while adding power. But it's an expensive muffler.. Now you got intercooling, wastegating and more precise tuning (to avoid the deadly detonation) and a little more engine compartment heat. Still kicking it around, but Im going to ceramic coat everything to minimize heat buildups and look into that deal where you put some blades around the prop extension and make the cowling open around them like a ducted fan to suck air through the engine compartment. Im sure a couple of horsepower could be put to use in such a way. Still, mild street porting and no turbo will make me have to muffle! Decisions, decisions. Earplugs for everyone!!!!! I got it! No. maybe not. back to work...

Ummm because the gas would all run out? Why would you want to? Lear 35 loop? or no. No. A Lear 35 is cool enough and fast enough to never need to do aerobatics. Ironically so is the Cozy You want aerobatics? Do a Citabria and/or a Pitts special. Take minimum 10 hours (I took 20 and wanted more) aerobatics training and choose a airplane designed for it. That's my opinion, but I have tried aerobatic maneuvers in planes not designed for them but could handle them. I didn't enjoy it that much and you probably won't either (unless it's someone elses' plane) especially if it's your own personal airplane. It's like: Dirt Bike / Road Bike The Cozy is a "Road Bike" Kevin

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the 30 minute rule. I just didn't know about it until it was too late. It's not a big deal. I am a stickler for (my own) spelling though. Thanks Kevin

I guess since I already have the ol' horse shoe, I have to add the price in (unless I sell it). 600? 700? I still have to buy the wheels (500 x 5 same), tires, brakes,brake hardware $1100? 1200? THEN I can send $5443.00 plus shipping, handling, any applicable taxes and of course a nice tip for JD! So, let's see here.. Optimally, I sell my slingshot for $800 (it's already to install) The 5443 for the RG kit and another 1389.52 for the tires wheels brakes etc is close to 6900 bucks. Take off my 800 and I get 6100. If I don't buy the parking brake, it's a little less than 6K plus SH tip etc. But since it's my first date with the "Prom Queen" I'll probably spring for all the marbles. So in view of the math, am I buying something that I shouldn't have to bring the price down to 3K. Or is my calculator bogus? Kevin OR...I could be wrong....?

You know, I had the same thought John. I liked the Infinity Aerospace gear because the designer is familiar with this particular canard/composite design and modifications to the spar and strake area to install it. It is a proven oleo strut design with an emergency system and hydraulic power. It also looks good on the pictures I have seen. I balked a little at the price (which is up to almost 55K now I think) but then I tried to piece together a system from another airplane: Cessna: Uses a fuselage mounted system, wont work with Cozy fuselage without extreme modifications. Piper, Beech, Grumman, Rockwell etc.. Most lower wing design retractable are too short for the Cozy which needs to be about 41.5 inches from the center of the strake to the ground. You can play with the location of the mount but you're still talking about some tall gear. Some light twin gear would work, except it is very heavy and requires bigger hydraulics and mounting hardware and would take up ALL the room in the strake. Now, there may be a model of a amphibious or other aircraft with suitable gear that may be close to working (research disclaimer) but when you look at the cost of even a used system (which, if is in good shape, is FAA certified which means top $$ ) it is close to what Infinity wants for the whole 9 yards. If you are like me, you are still interested in making your own, right? Well, you have a couple of choices: Buy the expensive certified used gear and modify it by adding length to the strut,which means changing it's design load characteristics by adding a tube by weldment or clamping/bolting system after you engineer the mounting systems by reverse engineering the gear swing axis, axle axis, wheel to wheel concentricity using unknown location points on an already crowded airframe which is aft cg sensitive. Or, start all over, grab your McMaster Carr catalogue and start pricing 12/24 VDC hydraulic pump systems, air/oil shocks, and hydraulic arms and mounting hardware or maybe a spring assisted oil/air shock for a trailing link design. Then, dont forget the lock down mechanism and emergency lowering system along with the position indication switches and indicator lights for the cockpit controls. You have to plan for the correct take-off posture as well, too high and the nose will be too low and hard to take off, too low and you could have take off problems and prop strike or aft cg exacerbation as well. Then there's the brake lines, brake and wheel alignment, gear doors and strake/spar/fuel cell modification to engineer and plan. Of course you will have to reconsider the electric nosewheel (why have 2 switches/systems to lower the gear) that will take some engineering as well. My thoughts are this: Planning RG for the sake of it itself is not worth it. If it is better and safer than FG maybe it is worth it. If you're just now in the planning stages, it would be a good time to consider it carefully. As far as costs go, well, you're building a 200 mph airplane! Don't go cheap now! The plans gear works and it's as cheap as your going to get. RG is expensive. As far as the pilot error goes: I have flown mostly RG planes (since 1975) and I was not military trained. I was drilled with the G.U.M.P. system (gas, undercarriage, mixture, prop(s)) I suppose you can forget anything, even forgetting to fill the tanks with fuel. But getting into any aircraft and flying it off the ground requires training and responsibility. You can learn to fly an airplane in 10 hours. The rest of the 35 hours is teaching you navagation, weather and what to do if something goes wrong. Of all the aircraft that fly the skies on a regular basis, the majority are RG aircraft. I believe the major cause of pilot error crashes are still fuel mismanagement. Anyway, I would seriously reconsider flying as a passenger in an aircraft with the pilot in command who said "I might forget to put my gear down" Considering RG is like contemplating asking the prom queen out, either you're all fired up about it and ready for anything she is going to say or you're nervous and sweating and walking away from the whole thing because she "probably wasn't worth it anyway". Besides, there's always the girl next door with "the beat up sneakers and a pony tail..........." Always thinking.... I have to stay up late at night thinking so I can catch up to Marc (when I'm 137 years old!) Kevin

I recently discovered a spelling error on my post. I has written the post and then re-read it but not good enough. About an hour later I read it again when someone had replied to the thread and I discovered the error. When I tried to edit the error it said "No editing after 30 minutes". That's OK but it said to contact support@canardzone.com for any changes. I sent a short email to ask for the word to be corrected, but it was sent back as undeliverable. It could be my system, but everybody elses' mail is delivered. I clicked on the link, so it isn't a typo of the address. I guess there isn't much of a need to contact "admin" anyway, but it would be nice if it worked. I will have to check spelling really good (backwards) before that 30 minute limit hits! Thanks! I enjoy reading the posts. Kevin

I must be getting dense in my old age. Being stuck in a hotel room for 4 weeks doesn't help. But it does give me time to research the internet and read interesting stories like the ones found in EZ squandron's story section. People taking trans-atlantic trips to Europe in Long ez along with the preparation and execution of such, was quite interesting reading. This led me to a quandry over how all these "Z" nose-dipping aircraft got to be so named. (Varieze = very easy to build) (Long-EZ = longer nose than a verieze) (Cozy = Copilot EZ as in side by side) but that's my take on it. My original intent in starting in this Cozy build was because of the ability to load more personnel so they could share the fun. As I read Jim's post I couldn't help but think of an INjection seat (the opposite of an EJECTion seat) which would place the injected (victim) into the correct seat of a Cozy without the prescribed gymnastics required of those who would occupy the rear seat. But I would attribute that fanciful thought to a scene in the James Bond movie "Goldfinger" which was playing on one of the 300 channels here at the hotel (they don't even have the Discovery Wings channel - what a cheap outfit!) I was priveleged to be able to be "strapped in" in John Slade's Cozy (thank you John for the tour!) and I must say that barring a crane hoist and a safety harness or climbing gear, there is no way, gull wing doors or not, for a woman, in a dress to modestly and gracefully seat herself in the rear seat of any of these Canard type aircraft. But, the downside of the exercise is those of us with LB (Large buttocks) may be pushing the envelope somewhat when attempting entry into the cockpit at ANY angle. I would like to emphasize, once again, the importance of visiting a mostly finished Cozy aircraft to get a physically correct idea of where you "fit" in the whole scheme of things. As you stand back with a contemplative pose, think of the benefits of the "plans" canopy, the Velocity "gull wing" doors, a "fireman's pole" or whatever your scheme (remember: It's "experimental") for entry/exit, and picture just how much modification, divergence from plans, re-engineering and testing it will take for a slight benefit in entering the aircraft in a somewhat civilized fashion (exit requires no civility...I always "jump" out....doesn't everyone?) Of course when dealing with one's spouse, one most always consider the outcome of a course contrary to the will of that one and make compensation, even upon matters requiring major efforts upon the smallest of trivialities, for these can and have changed the course of entire nations and quite possibly (in Jim's case and maybe mine) could cause my aircraft to have gullwing doors, a vanity mirror and be painted purple. Tongue placed firmly in cheek.... Kevin

If you are a member of EAA or AOPA, you can check with them. I have used AOPAs insurance service in the past for Commander 112 and Commanche 250 but never for homebuilt. The criteria they use for rates are: Recent time in class and type. Instrument rated. Total hours. Total hours in type. Model of plane, engine size, number of engines. Value of the plane. Retractable/complex. Claim within the last 7 years. I know that there are some aircraft that they will not insure or will run from (Twin Commanche) but most aircraft they will insure if you have an instrument rating and lots of recent time in type. Of course you will need deep pockets (full of money) and be willing to jump through a bunch of hoops (finding an instructor with over 200 hours in your type of aircraft and requiring at least 20 hours dual...) Experimental aircraft are another whole ball of wax...especially if you plan to carry passengers. It can be a rather touchy subject. If you crash into some people, survivors and relatives can take you to the cleaners, if you survive, your plane may not be in too bad of shape to fix it yourself and not file a ( one shot ) claim. As tough as these planes are, if you can't fix it after a crash, it's because it hit too hard (to survive). So hull insurance is not going to be a good investment in my opinion, and overall, the premiums could just about buy you a new Cozy every 7 or 8 years. Many pilots I know who have planes worth under $150,000. value, self insure because of the cost of premiums. Many homebuilt planes got insurance a few years ago when you could get it and get it pretty cheap. Obviously they aren't going to cancel such insurance unless there is non-payment of premium or a claim. I am going to put away money in an escrow and try to get liability insurance through AOPA and extra life insurance (so my wife can afford a decent husband if I croak) As you probably know, almost all "family" insurance companies will not insure pilots, or they make you sign a waiver that if you die while flying, they won't pay. I would join EAA and/or AOPA and talk to one of their insurance specialists if I were you. Since 911 GA has been under the gun and some capricious experimentalists have filed claims that have made insurance companies re-examine their cost/profit ratios and homebuilt aircraft have taken it on the chin. The situation changes almost daily. So check with them for current info: EAA http://www.eaa.org/chapters/admin/insurance.asp AOPA http://www.aopaia.com/ I hope this helps. Kevin

That's the darndest thing about reliability: You never know that it is - until it is! Then it was the whole time until you found out it was. Then everyone will try to prove it wasn't because of what they read or heard or happened to them once. Does that make sense? Well, fuel injection and turbo-charging/normalizing has come a long way in the last 10 years in the Lyc / Cont realm. If you can afford the newest in air-cooled technology, you'll probably not be posting questions here, discussing prudent investments in wind-power. But, like most of us here and perhaps those who wrote some FAA rules awhile back that gave permission to those who would experiment: There maybe a different way to do things that may be cheaper or better, but as long as it's safe, we're all for it! I've flown many hours in "spam cans" and have seen and lived the foibles of "simple" "KISS" turbo and FI systems. When they work, they work. When they don't, they don't. If you live through a failure and your aircraft survives, a realist will always wonder if the same equipment will fail the same way if replaced. I, for one, deal with technical advancements in industrial machine control technology where failures can be very expensive in many ways. Simple works. But it is limited. When you bring technology to the next century, sometimes you use the same wagon, but it is better and more reliable than the old one. It is because of design, we make it that way. Is it compatible with old technology? Well, piston engines are still driving new cars around aren't they? As long as the laws of nature tell us that things shrink when they cool off, we will always have the limitations of air-cooled technology if we decide to use it. Benefitting from experimentation is how we got this far. I refuse to believe we have not improved on the basic design and operation of the internal combustion engine. Manufacturers of such engines have to be able to show a fiduciary purpose (and convince the FAA under part 21 and others)to be able to make changes to such engines. The costs of such change may not make enough profit. That leaves it to people like us. So, take notes and be careful. Keep current and don't let your physical go. Contintental power is my second choice (TSIO-470) because of availability. I am interested to see how it turns out. Kevin (Sort of a "motor head" rebuilt 292 Ford V8 at 11 with my older brother 13 in 1967)

I was looking at numbers in percentages claimed by Infinty aerospace's RG setup for canard aircraft: 12+ %. That's about 24 mph at 200 mph (give or take an mph or 2) CS props do dig pretty good. The Commanche 250 I fly has a preference of about 7500 ft where fuel/prop/AoA are peak and gph is about 14 when it is lean and mean 22 square. I can watch the fuel consumption guage and tell whether I'm starting to climb or descend even slightly. If I touch the prop after I have peaked it, it makes a big difference. I climb out (with power somewhat reduced to keep it cool) with prop advanced and mixture rich and it indicates about 22 gph. The biggest effect on cruise economy is prop control. By the book it's 14 gph at about 8000 ft at 180 mph and I have never been able to sqeak it any better at level cruise. So, with CS prop AND RG I would say you could do just as good if not better with the Cozy vs the Lancair in a "fair" contest.. So maybe the Lancair was going downhill? working in Ohio so I can build in FL Kevin By the time I got done writing my reply, a new one was already up my Marc. I was focusing more on economy than top speed.

Yes..close enough for hand grenades and horse shoes... All is fair in love and war...( and what you tell your significant other [ why ] you need more stuff for your aiplane project "We could fly to your Mom's and be back home for supper with this new GPS! ") I think Marbleturtle is mincing adages for fun. Last post in 2003 maybe.. Kevin

I had a chance to use an industrial scale today so I thought I would weigh my 13B (this is for those of you who are building or using a 13B) This is a 1990 EFI high compression engine non-turbo. The specs say it developes 160 HP around 5700 RPM stock. Straight out of the car but without starter, distributor, alternator, air pump and associated brackets, with manifolds and everything else: 306 LBS Now, I took off everything but the water pump and flywheel (manual transmission): 215 LBS (picture) Drain the oil and water, take off oil filter and flywheel: 190 LBS (Scratching head) Take off water pump and oil pump housing 175 LBS Maybe something is living inside of the engine that weighs about 20 lbs. Are these weights as advertised? Or do I suspect a little stretching of the weights (some women do that, guys too I guess, but women are more known for it...saying they weigh less than they do....) I am thinking that with all the right stuff added back on (no turbo) I may squeeeeek by at 275 not counting fluids. Thoughts anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Freezing in Ohio at the moment.. Kevin

Does anyone have any idea when the next Fly in is supposed to take place? Sun n fun? etc??? Can we have our own? Kevin

Ah yes, the plans.... I think we all learn a little more about our airplanes and constructing a flying machine when we have to explain it to others. For instance: I felt obliged to explain why I was taking on such a large project (building a Cozy)when my brother's Commanche 250 was not only available but at a very good discount (free -except for fuel 14 gph). I explained to this person why I disliked the "cookie cutter" variety aircraft, and one reason why I was building a "homebuilt / experimental" aircraft. The word "experimental" was a real eyebrow raiser. I have no idea what that word conjures up in someone else's mind, but I always pictured something from "Those magnificent men in their flying machines movie", I mean come on, we all know how airplanes work, right? What could anyone think of that could possibly be the basis for an experiment aircraft? That's what many people think, including some "non-builders". That's what I thought too. As I read the many posts here and in the other Cozy sites, I saw something that seemed to be an underlying theme for anyone attempting to build a Cozy, and that theme was this: Stick to Nat's plans and you will have a safe, operating, fully functional flying machine, that will have the FAA's smile of approval some fine day. I agree with that sentiment. Nevertheless, if we all (what is it now almost 1200?) built airplanes just EXACTLY like the plans, how much different would we be that Piper, Cessna, Grumman etc.? If you want to get an airplane in the air quickly and easily, you follow the plans. If you want something a little different you put a little of yourself in the plans. If it works, great, if it doesn't you learn from it and go on. Obviously, you may have a stubborn streak in you if 10 other guys (or gals) couldn't get something to work and you still want to try it, but hey! that's what it is all about. I got to see John's plane last weekend. It's a work of art. Sure it's a Cozy, outside, but it's got John written all over it. I liked the way he did most of the things he did. I mean he is a pioneer in many facets of the build. The data he and many of the other builders are sharing with us ,is priceless. If we were in competition, the word would be: mum. I think that's why GA hasn't gone anywhere in the last 40 years (but that's my opinion). I believe that this is the cutting edge of General Aviation, perhaps not avaition in it's entirety, because the military will always be one step ahead (cause they got the $$$$) but for flying citizens around who arent millionaires and not soon to be, this is the cat's meow. Every wacky idea that is expounded here gets the full treatment from very knowledgeable people who have been there, done that or are thinking about it. So look on the map, see where you live. Some places on the map you can't do what we're doing. I agree with the "Dusty One", don't be afraid to want to make minor changes. Yes it will take longer, but at least you can learn from others who have tried it or are trying it now, or why they DIDNT do it.... So just remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question. Just stupid answers... Kevin

Does anyone have any ballpark cooling data on the 13B? I am looking for total BTUH or kCal/hr for the coolant and the oil temp loss requirements at the normal set figures (75 degrees F sea level etc 6000 rpm). I guess the auto guys don't worry about it too much and it's not addressed as well (if it gets hot, put a bigger one in there!..)on the rotary sites. Hopefully it will be less than 700 BTUH.. Thanx. Kevin

I just wanted to throw my $.02 in..while I still have some $$$ The SQ2000 was the subject of much research on my part, as my choice was between the Cozy and the SQ. I have to agree with Jim on the "math" issue. I was trying to put a cost per hour figure on the estimated build times, and I never came out ahead on the SQ, but still I wavered. (I liked the retracts) Finally I saw the support for Cozy builders, the origin of the design and the fact that it has been tweaked already by the people who care about it the most (the ones who put their butts in the seats and point the plane skyward) and who, for the most part, aren't trying to sell you something. In addition,(as I have said before) building between dips in a hot-tub and engineering naked has always appealed to me. However it is not necessary to use a hot tub or to engineer au natural when building a Cozy, but I believe it helps. But that's just my opinion, not necessarily that of the management, some of my friends think I have taken leave of my senses and much more so especially upon discovery of the greenish colored "tub" which I call a fuselage, sitting harmlessly on supports in my garage. I show them the picture of what it WILL look like some day, and they look around for wings, props, plastic canopies or something that looks like the picture. Then they give my wife a half smile and a knowing look of sympathy, turn and walk away muttering and rolling their eyes. So maybe there is something to having parts lying around that LOOK like airplane parts to the untrained eye right from the get-go. So... back to work. Kevin

Yeah, you guessed it.. The test of the space probe deal. I'll never see the altitude it went and Im not sure I want to, but I think it's pretty cool the same guy that designed the airplane Im building did all that and more. It was more or less a blurb at the end of my exposition. But the aft cg sensitive part was referring to the canard design in general. To put a 430 lb+ engine in the airframe would load up the gross and cause me to have to put counterweights etc in the front. I would prefer it to be "under powered" and lighter than optimally designed with the most powerful a/c engine available in the proper weight class, than boasting a pudgy 250 HP and 14+ gph on a much heavier engine. But that's just me, the only thing I've flown with a rear engine is a Skymaster, and it always had the engine in front going while I was flying it (I like it that way) So, in any case this will be a new experience for me. I just don't want to push the envelope my first time out... Does that explain anything??? Back to work... again

I feel like I should look around as a person does when he enters a new house... Nice. I hope everyone remembers to use the new address when referring to old posts and articles, because they certainly don't work now... But that's not what I came to say.. I am now planted squarely in the rotary-engine-for-my-Cozy camp. I remembered my older brother had built up a few RX-7s and had amassed a good deal of usable info and technical goodies over the years and has the procedures for building up engines. So I got me a good core and I will start the rebuild when I get back from Ohio (2nd week in Jan) while Im waiting for stuff from AC Spruce.. I plan to use a moderate street porting, EFI and turbo (for noise reduction mainly and high alt boost) fabricate my own intake and exhaust manifolds and the rest of the stuff. I want to use Tracey's newest PSRU (C model) but I will have to wait for that anyway. I am going to collect as much data on intercoolers, engine coolant and oil cooling as possible. I may try to get a big Vortec cooler and pump cool air into the system and use cowl flaps for take off, but that's for now.. Any thoughts? I am pretty excited about going rotary, I turned down a very good deal on an I0-470 when I got the weight specs. I guess it would have not been so great on an aft-cg sensitive airframe. anyway, even so it was pretty anti-climactic after hearing about Burt's latest adventure! back to work....

You know....boat rack guy... They make radar arches and rails and diving tank racks and canvas frames and bowspirits etc, mostly made of Stainless, but they also make some stuff out of aluminum (it doesn't fare too well in sea-water) anodized etc and pickup truck racks for carrying long materials and ladders (from aluminium tubing). Not all aluminum tubing bends well, but they use the same benders, the wall of the tubing is thicker though because the thin wall stuff tends to kink. If you feel gnarley and want to do it yourself, they have a hydraulic bender at Harbor Freight (or was it Northern Tools) for about $80. But if you have double recurve ("S" shapes) bends, you will have to cut and weld them, because the bend radius is too large (unless you've doubled the size of the engine cowling) and usually pipe doesn't "unbend" in the middle of a bend very well (except copper and other malleable metals) preferring to kink instead. Those guys are pretty reasonable on pricing ,usually. Of course you can always take the trap out of the bathroom sink;) Later... Kevin

Thanks guys, I spend quite a bit of time remanufacturing/fabricating factory engineered parts. I have access to a host of machine shops with CNC's precision grinders etc (I fix 'em). Some things I leave to the BIG boys..(ball screws, bearings, and anything I can't lift onto a table) but none of the parts I saw in the plans were that difficult. I did see some of the control surface actuator stuff that was labor intensive though. So, that's why I was griping. I usually don't buy that kind of finished product unless it's FAA approved and I have to. Some of those peices are a result of an ISO 9000 classification that didn't quite make it on every part, but Im picky about machining quality, so I usually make it myself. I don't want to hold myself up anymore than necessary, so I may grab some stuff from Brocks. One important piece is the nose wheel. Brock is the only place I have seen that sells a caster designed for 10" pneumatic wheels, that will fit on the end of the special strut and is evidently made from a non-ferrous metal. I would love to find something with a little more beef...oh well, maybe I'll reverse engineer something. John, There is a few guys over here that fabricate aluminum / stainless boat parts with excellent bends and welded end plates. I can get the guys web page if you are interested.. Im sure you have already thought of that, there are a bunch of boat rack guys over there.. Kevin

Thanks Mike! er... Dust I was thinking about going for a mill and a lathe for my shop... I might anyway, but I have to get some more stuff done on the "project" if-you-know-whut-I-mean-and-I-think-you-do Gettin' ready to get ready is over..now Im just getting ready. Now, I got to find Clifford.. I must be off... Kevin

Everybody must be out sanding.... When you get back... I have to get a few parts made out of metal that didn't come with the project I bought. It's got alot of stuff but not everything.. F'rinstance: MKMGA 4130 stainless tubes .75" OD .063" and 6.909" long (add .157" to length for bushings I DO have) and you get 7 and 1/16th . OK how much is a piece of stainless like that from Brock? $40 bucks! for one! Did everybody pay that? Gee whiz! I wonder what the tolerance is on the length. Anyway, my query (since I work in the machine tool field..) is: Is there someplace else to get this stuff? I mean most of the pieces are drawn out on the plans, but it looks like if you don't get it from Brock you don't get it. I am a firm believer in making sure it's done right, and when it comes to machining parts, I can hold my own with the best of them, but I figured on being raped in the flight instrument department, not the little piece stuff. If no one else has a handle on a supplier (approved, unapproved or ??) has anyone found a good vendor for the raw materials (besides aluminium)?? Hello? Is this the part where we all bend over? (hint: A Mom and Pop machine shop would charge you about $50 for the items mentioned above if they were busy. 10 minute setup on a lathe run to about .002" tolerance. Total time less than 15 minutes..part would be hot when you took it to your car and everyone would be happy, if he didn't like you he might charge you 60 and blame it on the stainless....) Kevin (not wanting to bend over till the avionics)