kumaros

There is no "problem".

Cosygirrrl hidden Rudder Horns: $30 each plus shipping.

You won't do better than this at any price.

Buy the parts, build the chapter, . . . next.

http://www.cozygirrrl.com/aircraftparts.htm Follow this link, you will find what you need near the bottom of the page directly above the engine mounts. Hope this helps

And there I was thinking Internet was only for pr%n

I think I'll buy these just as works of art; they'll look fabulous on my wall

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

Converting a video cassette to MPEG format is very easy. The only thing needed is a TV card, or, in my case, an external TV module connected by USB to my laptop. These TV cards or modules accept composite video input from a VCR and convert it to MPEG format. You burn the resulting MPEG file to a CD or DVD and presto! There's, however, less and less need for conversion as almost all modern videocameras have digital video-out. Could we foreigners/aliens :-) hope that some kind soul record this year's forum and make the video available online, with the presenter's permission of course?

 

Kumaros

Jon,

the tubular legs end at revolving feet you can screw in and out thus adjusting table height; it's a very straightforward arrangement. My tables were actually salvaged from a shop remodelling project. You can find the legs in packages of four at most DIY and home-improvement centers.

Kumaros

I am finally at the point where I need a shop table to continue, and am fixing to build a couple smaller tables, based on the design of EAA Chapter 1000's Standardized Work Tables.

 

I'm sure it's a bit more work to make these happen, and there are some more involved issues with regard to leveling, but everything I've heard about them from others is positive.

 

So... this is my last chance... is there any major reason I should reconsider building a single large table instead?

My solution: 2' wide kitchen counter-top board (melamine/formica covered) cut to 4' length, sitting on four of those tubular adjustable legs you can get at any home-improvement center.

Kumaros

Hans,

in my opinion, a much better solution than the backward opening Berkut canopy, with the inherent risk of catastrophic opening in flight, is the forward opening canopy of the Cosy Classic, or the Cozy Girrls design for the Cozy MkIV, or the Dutch Aircraft Factory RangeR design with its clever release mechanism if you have to bail out. See:

http://www.dac-ranger.nl/canrel_uk.html

Kumaros

http://www.uship.com/

Kumaros

Hans, I'd like to build my own prop, no mistake about it. However, the magnitude of the task, the need for absolute accuracy and repeatability in two or three blades in three dimensions, combined with the disastrous results if something would go wrong, again combined with the relatively low price for a two or three blade Ivo in-flight adjustable prop, made me decide to buy. I wish you and the members of the prop forum lots of success in your endeavour.

Kumaros

I have the Flieger Magazin January 2001 issue with an extensive report on the Bateleur and several big and detailed photos. The prop is definitely above the delta wing and is totally protected by it from flying object damage.

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

snipped ...

The tandum Bateleur may be my best hope, they say it can land on a beach -wow ! (if it ever gets approved in the Euro/JAR world) and (if the dynosaurs in the PFA actually pass it for flying in the UK). I think it only took them about 5yrs to do the Cozy4, as a 2 seater only.

snipped...

 

The Bateleur is also available as a kit built experimental. If you think this is the plane for you, try contacting the factory. Their site mentions various versions available or planned: UL, VL, LSA, Experimental etc. Find out what suits your needs best.

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

A brief Google search turned up this:

http://www.fakr.co.za/Totality.htm

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

Would like to hear the groups for's and against's for the aircraft listed below.

 

Long-Eze:

snipped

 

Cozy IV:

snipped:

 

E-Racer:

snipped

 

My list of wishes are:

Canard (really)

160hp or equivilant

Preferably 2 seats (not totally discounted to 4 but need very good reasons)

Side by side seating preferably

Plans built (I plan on taking my time about the project, not intended to be finished in 3-5 years).

Very good handling qualities.

 

We could enter into a whole new debate about 2 Vs 4 seats here, but at the moment I would like to know if one model should not be built due to design issues or flying qualities.

 

Thanks

 

Jamie

Hi Jamie,

why choose only between 2 and 4 place aircraft? you forgot the camel's way, which seem to thrive in Australia :-)

With your wish list you just described a Cozy III as your ideal aircraft; it fulfills all your criteria. It's the middle of the road between the Long-EZ and the Cozy MKIV, you can pick up an unifinished project for cents on the dollar, and even though it isn't a high priority for you, save a couple of years building.

Kumaros

If I remember correctly, the X-Plane programmer is sometimes active in this forum. Could he, or anyone else for that matter, experienced in experimental aircraft simulations, run a simulation of a Defiant/Cozy III or IV hybrid, using two very small displacement, under 1.5 liter common-rail turbodiesels, such as the Mitsubishi 1.5 liter 95HP for the Cozy MKIV, or the Fiat 1.25 liter 70 HP turbodiesel for the Cozy III, while keeping the aircraft configuration as close to the Cozy as possible?

Probable changes:

1) Larger canard to support the weight of the forward engine.

2) Fixed front gear to free the most probably bigger and elongated nose for the second engine

3) Incorporate the front gear into the Defiant specific "rhino rudder"

4) As the engines are liquid cooled, some weight shifting around for weight and balance purposes is allowed, such as putting all radiators and all batteries aft, to keep with the rear-heavy configuration of the Cozy.

Please keep in mind that modern, common-rail turbodiesels are wonders of fuel efficiency, sipping fuel at the rate of 3 gallons an hour at cruise speed and altitude, as contrasted to the 10 to 15 gallons an hour of the original aviation engines of the Defiant. There is no need therefore for over 100 gallons of fuel; something like 25 to 30 gallons of diesel or Jet-A would be more than enough for a thousand miles range.

Any ideas welcome, but a simulation would be best.

Kumaros

I own a Verieze in need of a new engine.

snipped ...

The best source for parts and information is William Wayne of Fly corvair and he dosent seem to want one of his rebuilds on a verieze. He said that the Verieze is an unsafe airplane due to its high take off and landing speed so that leaves me to figure out the engine mount exct.

snipped ...

Thanks Rick

If I were you I'd interpret his slur on the Vari-EZ's safety as a hint to the true or perceived reliability of his engine, just as the warning on two-stroke Rotaxes, "engine may stop at any time", and I'd steer clear of the Corvair. There are beautiful modern engines out there (Rotax 9XX series, Jabiru, modern common-rail turbo-diesels, such as the Thielert Centurion), why revisit Jurassic park?

Kumaros

Each engine is actually a 4-cylinder auto engine from a Suzuki Swift.

And that was the best and cheapest solution at that time, almost ten years ago. Turbo-diesels, with their hugely improved power to weight ratio and their unchanged reliability and fuel efficiency, may be the better solution now.

I'd take a careful look at the Mercedes/Mitsubishi 1.5 liter 95 HP aluminum head and block, used in the Smart Forfour and the Mitsubishi Colt.

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

Thanks Kumaros,

 

Can You give me links to check out the used market where the hyundai 1.5 CRDI and the yaris deisel engines are available. You also mentioned somewhere about the merc deisel at arount 500 Euro.

 

I am keen to talk to any of the IBIS builders to get their views and as long as the engine wt and dimensions are in the similar range, which I gues they might be, why the French IBIS designer should have reservations?

 

Anybody concerned with a high stall and landing speed of this baby. The construction costs are claimed to be in the region of 5000 Euro.

 

Avi005

I can give you a couple of links to the European used car market, including cars wrecked in accidents, as potential engine donors:

http://eng.autoscout24.com/home/index/search.asp?make=0&country=D&model=0&eurofrom=0&euroto=0&mileagefrom=0&mileageto=0&yearfrom=0&yearto=0&radius=0&zip=&extendedsearch=Extended

http://www.mobile.de/SIDAjNIr3BYCPeYeCwQ-K5oEw-t-vaNexlCsCsK~BmSB11Iindex_cgiJ1112433536A2D1100CCar/cgi-bin/index_cgi.pl?_form=search&sr_make=-2&sr_model=&sr_priceFrom=-2&sr_priceTo=-2&sr_category=1100&sr_powerFrom=-2&sr_powerTo=-2&sr_registrationDateFrom=-2&sr_registrationDateTo=-2&sr_mileageFrom=-2&sr_mileageTo=-2&sr_country=-2&sr_zip=&sr_zipRadiusTo=-2&doDetailSearch.x=46&doDetailSearch.y=8

 

For you, however, it may be cheaper, closer, more convenient to search the Korean or Japanese used car and engine market, but you'll have to do your own Googling for this.

As far as engine weight for the Ibis is concerned, I'm sure you've read the recommendations of the designer, specifying a VW air-cooled boxer for weight and power reasons. The closest I could find to the recommended engine would be this Limbach, VW-conversion. Look at the O-122 engine, (2.0 liter boxer):

http://home.adelphia.net/~aeroengine/Limbach.html

I don't know what you mean be Merc diesel for EUR 500. If you mean the Mercedes/Mitsubishi 1.5 liter turbo diesel, it's all new on the market, so even a wrecked car (a Mitsubishi Colt not even one year old) would go for about EUR 3000. If you mean the Mercedes Benz 3.0 liter V6 turbo diesel (from a Mercedes Benz car costing about EUR 40000), also all new, the engine alone would be about EUR 5000, not 500.

I wish you good luck in your endeavour and please keep us posted about your progress.

 

Kumaros

Hi, new to this and comtemplating building a IBIS in India. Send so many emails without any response and putting me off as to the kind of support available on this. Can any of the builders on this contact me ?

 

I am planning to put in a Suzuki 1.3 engine and what does the manual or drawing say on the redrive? Can a 1.7 common rail diesel also be tried.

 

Anybody trying for reduced stall and landing speed?

 

Thanks for responding for a newbie from the Sunny India.

Take a look at the Hyundai 1.5 liter 82 HP common rail turbo diesel, the Toyota Corolla and Yaris 1.4 D-4D 90 HP and weighing 108 kg, or even better the all new Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 liter 95 HP alluminium head and aluminium block common rail turbodiesel (should weigh about 110 kg). The designer of the IBIS, however, insists on a VW engine for weight reasons. How much does a 2.0 liter aircooled VW boxer weigh?

 

Kumaros

It's a conventional auto engine; liquid cooled. You would still need a redrive or at least a thrust bearing to take the prop load.

 

-- Len

It's a conventional water-cooled in-line 4-cylinder common-rail turbo-diesel to be used in the new Toyota Avensis and the Lexus IS. For an extensive article on the new Avensis and some pictures of the engine go to this URL:

http://www.japanesecarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2050301.011

In one of the pictures, the particle filter is shown attached to the turbo. Doubly attenuated by the turbo and the particle filter, the exhaust note of this engine should be suitably subdued.

Kumaros

Too bad they:

1. Aren't selling any engines yet.

2. Are only going to sell "certified" engines at "certified" prices.

3. Are in Germany and go to the local "Aero show"

4. haven't got a distribution network set up.

5. Don't have any dates for completion, expected delivery dates etc.

 

Why is it all the really cool engines (and airplanes) are still in the making?

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Zoche engines. The general consensus about the Zoche diesel venture is that it is more of a subsidy grabbing ploy than anything. The closest equivalent would be the Moller aircar.

Real world alternatives right now are the Deltahawk, flying in a Velocity, and Wilksh Airmotive, flying in a Piper I think.

The best candidate for an auto-conversion engine would be the new Toyota D-4D Clean Power to be used in the Toyota Avensis and the Lexus IS:

2.2 liter, 175 HP at 3600 RPM, 400 Nm from 2000 to 2600 RPM, all aluminium construction with cast iron liners, ~ 150 kg weight, produced in the all new Toyota factory in Polland with a capacity of 150000 engines per year.

Kumaros

It's all Greek to me

I haven't seen this movie, but I did see something on the History Channel this weekend that made my jaw drop.

 

Tivo (and similar) users may want to set a timer for the next occurrence of "Last Secrets of the Axis." a WWII documentary that sheds light on the Japanese super weapons that were on the cusp when we dropped the bomb. Actually the show is about geopolitical and cultural tie-ins between Germany and Japan, but mostly about the cool tech that never got deployed.

 

Back on topic, they showcased the Japanese Kyushu J7W1 Shinden fighter which used a revolutionary canard design. The prototypes we found had props, but this bird was designed to be a jet fighter! The historians interviewed all agreed that if Japan was able to get this fighter airborne sooner, the war would have lasted much longer and we would have lost many more bombers than we did.

 

The show had black and white pictures of the Shinden, but also had several animated sequences of both the prop and jet powered Shinden attacking our bombers.

 

Just a side note, the Shinden's main gear operates like the Infinity retracts, while the nose is opposite of the Rutan-derived canards. Also the castors at the bottom of the rudders apparently are there to protect the prop from ground strikes on rotation or landing.

 

The japanese arrived at the canard pusher design as a practical way of making a single-engined jet aircraft. Unable to produce materials that could withstand the exhaust temperatures, the turbine had to be placed at the rear, while contemporary dual jets hung off of the wings so that meltable in the airframe would be behind the jets. Putting this much weight aft, meant that they had to move the flight control surfaces somewhere else, hence the canard design.

 

-- Len

It's in the Smithsonian:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/kyushu_j7w1.htm

By the way that's some prop hanging from the ass of that bird!!!

Kumaros

If they would do a turbo 6 cylinder, I would rethink the rotary. My Father had an assortment of MB diesels that lived between 250,000 and 700,000 miles before he traded up. As long as the engine had a mechanical fuel pump, all the electronics or accessories could die but the engine would keep pumping. Definate "get you there and back" appeal.

 

They finally do, both MB and VW are producing V6 turbodiesels, both 225HP at 4000RPM, 205HP at 2800RPM, flat torque curve from ~ 1500RPM to 2800RPM. Feast your eyes:

 

http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2041216.002/page/2/lang/eng/mercedes/1.html

 

http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2041117.004/page/1/lang/eng/volkswagen/1.html

 

 

Mercedes quality has taken a dump since the eary 90's, but since they spend most of their effort fiddling with the gas engines, I would still trust the current MB diesels.

 

True, even German automobile magazines lament the low reliability of modern German cars, most problems, however, tend to lie in their complicated electronic gadgets. German metallurgy still rules, although all German car manufacturers did have some problems with their Bosch diesel pumps.

 

Kumaros

It is my firm belief that modern common-rail turbo-diesels are inherently suitable for aviation applications.

The only problem is that V6 ~ 200HP engines, suitable for a Cozy, tend to be rarer and of course more expensive than the more common, in-line-four-cylinder ~ 100HP ones.

Given the plentiful availability in Europe of ~ 100HP common-rail turbo-diesels at prices around EUR 500 (US$ 650) for very low mileage examples, their torque curves flat to around 2800 RPM just like "normal" aviation engines, thus obviating the need for a PSRU, their very low thirst for fuel making up for their slightly higher weight, etc., one could buy three to five engines and never care for major overhauls ever again. Even exchanging engines at let's say 500 hours, it would only cost ~ 1 EUR per hour for an, almost, new engine. Newly acquired engines would go on an airboat for testing and breaking in for ~ 50 hours, then they would go on the aircraft for the next 500 hours, then they would be spares in a crate, should the need arise. Sharing engines with the family car, the owner/pilot/mechanic would build a wealth of experience on the specific engine, its management and its maintenance.

A good commercial example would be the Centurion engine, which is based on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class 1.7 liter common-rail turbo-diesel engine, and is already certified. The Diamond line of aircraft use it with excellent results, as evident by the return trip of their light twin, that was exhibited at Oshkosh, from Newfoundland to the Azores over the Atlantic, using something like 60 gallons of fuel. Try doing that with a gas engine of whatever configuration.

Other good auto-conversion candidates would be the Isuzu family of engines used by Opel and Saab, the HDI engines used in PSA group cars, the VW TDI engines, etc. A beautiful conversion of an Isuzu engine is used in the Dutch RangeR. It's a pity that I 1) cannot afford a kit-built aircraft, 2) am hopelessly in love with canard designs.

I would welcome the opinion of builders more knowledgeable than I, people that would know how to extrapolate similarities and differences between Defiant and Cozy, relative sizes of wings and canards, center of gravity issues etc. An X-Plane simulation would be excellent. Please don't forget that the Defiant is designed with a fuel capacity of 115 gallons, more than double that of the Cozy, and is "beefed-up" to support the two O-320's it is designed for. All this would be unnecessary in a twin diesel push-pull Defiant/Cozy.

 

Kumaros

Hi,

 

snipped...

 

How about the glass material then:

What type of glass cloth is being used in Cozy?

Specs (strength), weight per square meter, apparently it is E-Glass rather

than S-glass etc.? There are plenty of options available already here

in Finland ranging from 48 g per square meter up to heavy stuff.

 

Hi Karoliina,

regarding your questions about materials for the Cozy, you can download the complete building instructions manual (minus full scale templates) for the AeroCanard, which is 99.99% Cozy, from the Aerocad site at:

http://www.aerocad2.com/

That's what I did when Jeff Russell put it online a couple of months ago, and that's what gave me the final push to order plans and hopefully start building soon.

With friendly regards

Kumaros

P.S. I'll use MGS epoxy, picking it up myself at the factory in Germany, in order to get fresh material and avoid hazmat shipping charges, and foam and glass material sourced locally; so we are in the same boat ;-) so to speak.

I think there are more viable options in the 90 to 160 HP engine range than there are in the 180 to 250 HP range.

snipped...

 

There are three roads open:

- Join two ~ 100 HP common-rail turbo-diesels, as the Leon brothers have done. 100 HP turbo-diesels are currently a dime a dozen in Europe, as over 50% of new cars are bought with diesel engines.

- Use one of the new 3 liter V6 turbo-diesels of Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz. While their maximum power is 225HP at 4000 RPM, slightly derated they put out 205HP at 2800 RPM, with > 500 Nm of torque from 1500 to 2800 RPM, making them extremely suitable for directly driving a huge propeller. The VW is a special kind of cast iron, the Mercedes Benz is aluminum with iron liners. They both weigh in at about 400 lbs. I only wonder if one could invert them like the Wilksch Airmotive WAM series of engines, thereby raising the crankshaft and providing the opportiunity of swinging an even bigger prop.

- To avoid center of gravity issues, one could use two ~ 100HP turbo-diesels in a push-pull configuration, almost like a Defiant, but without the additional structure and fuel capacity needed to support huge, thirsty, vibrating, antiquated aircraft engines, like IO-320's the Defiant was designed for.

 

Kumaros

Adding to the list...

• Superior (Lycoming clone)
• DeltaHawk (diesel engines)

I suppose we could use a comprehensive list of possibilities in the Engines section here.

You forget two very important engines:

http://www.thielert.com/en/aviation/engines.htm

Thielert Centurion, a modified Mercedes A-Class engine, already certified in Europe and flying in numerous aircraft, most notably Diamond. The twin engine Diamond was at this year's Oshkosh and flew back to Europe over the Atlantic from Newfoundland to the Azores, burning something like 200 liters (~ 60 gallons) of jet-A fuel. That's the reliability and economy I'd like to have.

 

http://www.wilksch.com/

Wilksch Airmotive. An very viable proposition, especially after their teaming up with Yanmar Diesel (a well known manufacturer of marine diesels).

 

They both cost about US$ 20K and they are certified and/or flying in actual aircraft, no pie-in-the-sky.

 

Kumaros

MGS is approved epoxy (and preferred by some) and it is a German based company. MGS 285 and 335 can be used.

 

Kevin

They have English, German and French versions of their website at this URL:

 

http://www.mgs-online.com/

 

I have read only positive comments about MGS resins. People are reporting reduced odour problems, very high strength, especially if post-cured, low viscosity even at room temperatures, etc.

Kumaros