karoliina

Interesting talk about tax deduction since I live in a country with insane gasoline taxation and therefore gas in my country (Finland) is very expensive. Yesterday the car fuel was cheap, I refueled my car and the fuel did cost 1.102 euros per liter. 1 gallon = 3.79 liters. Euro is about 1.26 USD. Therefore we can calculate how much it did cost with your terms: 3.79 * 1.102 * 1.26 = 5.26 USD per gallon (and I consider it cheap). AVGAS is becoming more expensive and it's price is expected to increase by 100%. What if a gallon would cost more than 10 USD? Your friend used 100 gallons per day gas, how he would liked if that would have costed for him 1000 USD per day? Yes, that indeed is going to happen in Finland. Because of the high gas price here, I am especially interested in alternative engines to Lycosaurus. Lycosaurus produces a very little power compared to its enormous thirst. Also, because of this, using an aerodiesel engine would be a very good idea too except that the aerodiesel motors are very expensive (purchase price) if compared to a auto motor running on gas (such as the RX7/RX8 motor).

Both rolls and loops work fine in the X-plane model of Cozy allthough the loops build up lots of speed. But I was thinking how a canard would be able to do aerobatics then (if we are thinking of a "Super Cozy" in other words something that is a step further): - for inverted flight: better pitch control that has authority even in inverted flight - aerodynamic design should allow a higher Vne. The 220 mph Vne is very low considering that many Lancairs have higher Vne and even higher cruise speed. As a result, the speed build up in a loop wouldn't be that big problem. * can someone point out why Cozy's Vne is just 220 mph, in other words, what breaks if one flies overspeed? Airplanes that have less strong structure have sometimes higher Vne and it makes me wonder what is the problem with Cozy. With X-plane model, it is possible to fly several times faster than Vne without aerodynamic problems. But that is another thing, when the control surfaces etc. tear of. Is the 220 mph conservative Vne, the fastest speed Nat was willing to fly in test program or is it really the top limit where after that the aircraft tears apart? * I can assume that the Vne becomes a problem with the prop first (I assume it tears apart before the structure). * About the deep stall issue: in X-plane model the Cozy does not deep stall if the CG is on the right place, no matter how it is flown, inverted, straight up etc. anything goes. When the nose is pointed straight up and the airspeed becomes zero, the nose just drops either forwards or backwards and it is possible to recover the aircraft after that rather easily. It would be interesting to know why this does not match with reality, in the case in reality, if the aircraft really always goes to deep stall if flown like that. Canard itself shouldn't be directly indication that aerobatics is impossible since many fighter jets have indeed canards (double delta wings) such as Saab Draken (okay Draken was not good aerobatics plane or dogfight plane) and the newer Swedish designs. People are always suggesting a slow turbulent profile aircraft for aerobatics, but jet fighters for example aren't that slow despite they allow aerobatic maneuvers in dogfight. What I am thinking would be an aircraft that has handling qualities similar to a fighter jet. It would be possible to fly inverted etc. with no problems with very high speeds. I think that capability (whilst not being ideal) for basic aerobatics would be a safety issue too. What if you end up in the trailing vortex of a 737. Next you say that it will never happen. But errors can happen in real life, even if you don't do any error, someone else can do it (and you can become the victim), and one should never say never. If you end up upside down with an aircraft that has no control authority to roll it back would be a very hazardous thing and in my opinion, the control surfaces should be designed so that in emergency situation at least, it should be possible to recover the aircraft from ANY position (it should be designed so that it would be possible to break away even from deep stall if that would occur, in other words, if main wing continuously stalls, it should be possible to make the canard stall first in an emergency situation temporarily). Also a "super cozy" should have a ballistic recovery system to save the aircraft and pilot in the case it would enter unrecoverable deep stall if the deep stall issue is so serious as some claim. I was thinking that instead of placing the ballast to nose, it could contain the parachute (another good reason for the placement would be avoiding hitting the propeller).

I would vote for Burt Rutan, in addition of doing great aircraft designs, he is now making my dreams come true [with SpaceShipOne and the projects that will follow after that and also in the sense of showing to people that it can be done, which is also very important], it is a different thing to do spaceships than build bridges. Yes, there is complexity in bridges and railways, but space is a completely different issue. There is also complexity in software and also in many other areas of engineering. But still, it is still a completely different thing to build a spaceship than write 5 million lines of C-code. Burt Rutan is opening the final frontier for us, he appears to believe in the same way as I do, space is a place, not a program. I see no bright future for NASA, the future is in the commercial utilization of space. To get back to the original issue; What comes to Super Cozy, I think that it would be a great idea to try to improve the design if possible - in the case if someone competent enough could do it, meaning that the person has enough experience in aerodynamic design. There is no perfect design out there and there is always room for improvements. In the case of Cozy, I would see as the most important issue the alternative engines. Old aircraft engines (meaning Lycosaurus) really aren't very economic and also it would be a good idea to increase efficiency by reducing weight, by reducing aerodynamic drag (in other words perhaps laminar profiles to all wings) and also what I have tried with the X-plane model, with a higher power engine, why Cozy couldn't be basic aerobatics approved, perhaps it would be very nice change. Aerobatics approved doesn't need to mean that it would be inefficient aerobatics plane with turbulent profile wings, but rather an aircraft that would allow flying upside down etc. without problems - in other words, without being perfect for the aerobatics task, would at least allow doing it if the pilot can do it. At least the X-plane model does barrel rows etc. basic aerobatics without problems, why it would be so impossible to have a version of real Cozy that would allow that as well. Wasn't the airframe designed for very high G loading after all, actually for even higher loading than the actual aerobatics planes? Also I would like more clear canopy (at least bigger windows) so that also back seat would have excellent visibility to all directions. For example some sort of that way than it was done in the Opie-3. And of course, I would prefer that the Super Cozy or whatever, would fly faster than a fastest Lancair out there.

Hi, I by the way experimented with the X-plane model yesterday. If the weight would remain the same, but the motor would give 260 hp instead of 180, it would be a great aerobatics plane. At least the model can do many kind of tricks and didn't indicate any problem. I also tried to get it to deep stall, but it just didn't go. I moved the cg as much back as possible, but still it did not deep stall. Finally I got it to a sort of backwards spin where I got out by putting the motor to full power (I had modified the model to 350 hp, so it appeared to be powerful enough to do it, I tried it also with 105 hp and it wouldn't have been enough to get it out). I will try to modify the aircraft in the editor since I would like to demystify what is the deep stall on the first place. How about removing the lower winglets in addition to moving the cg? Perhaps adding some overweight and a underpowered engine? Actually X-plane is pretty fun to try to find out what happens if the builder does something wrong in the building process, assuming that it is accurate at least to some extent. Best Wishes, Karoliina

There is no scheduled airline traffic to those airfields. Those where the airliners land, are of course bigger, usually kilometers long (1 km = 1000 m ~ 3000 feet). However, to fly around the country, I would like to land to airfields that have no air traffic control and that are narrow and short, just to visit nice places around. Still, in general they are longer than 2000 feets and wider than just 40 feet except some exceptions where it is not possible to land with a Cozy anyway (grass fields and such). That guy just believes that Cozy is very hard to fly and requires lots of experience of high power aircraft. But he is just that kind of guy, not only was the question about flying, but the other things too. He have also been trying to discourage me from starting the project, he is pretty convinced that I just can't do it and I will waste my life, health, money, time and whatever if I start.

Hi, We tried it yesterday. One Finnish Cozy owner warned that Cozy is very hard fly and land and that I could not land it to even the biggest airfields in Finland. Either the X-plane model is very inaccurate or his claims are wrong since we successfully landed the virtual Cozy yesterday just with first try. I had set wind to 8 knots and added some turbulence, but no problem. In fact the airplanes I am currently flying, require a lot more attention in the landing or otherwise the nose gear will fail. Because I have never tried a simulator that would be completely realistic so far, I am a bit sceptical, it just can't be that easy in real life I guess or is there some unset realism settings in the X-plane (hopefully it is not in a sort of arcade mode or something, perhaps someone can assist me if he/she has better knowledge how to put all realism on in X-plane if there is a such setting). Best Wishes, Karoliina

Diesel is a good idea (IMHO). If I am going to build, that is something I will consider. Yes, exactly the same problem here, I think it is even more expensive here in Finland... Best Regards, Karoliina Salminen

Hi, Short introduction: I am currently working as senior software engineer / project manager at Nokia. I can't tell much more about it except that my work somewhat involves open source stuff. My partner (who is also flying) has a company which does pretty nice embedded Linux devices based mainly on PowerPC family microprocessors. Those would be quite suitable for EFIS systems, in the case someone would be interested in Linux based avionics system. For more information, have a look: http://www.katix.org I have currently European UPL license (eligible to fly airplanes similar to U.S. Sports Plane category) but I am going to upgrade it to PPL in the future. Currently I am flying TL-96 Star ( http://www.tl-ultralight.cz ), EV-97 Eurostar and Ikarus C42. Despite of the variety of types of aircrafts I am flying, I am currently a very low time pilot as I just recently got the pilot's license. But that is going to change in the near term future, as I am spending as much time up there as possible I am looking forward for someday perhaps owning a canard aircraft, either purchased or self-built. Plans built aircraft could suit me better than a fast build kit as the expenses would be quite much lower for a plans built kit allthough it would consume more time and on the other hand, I would prefer to spend more time on the air than in the carage if possible but really, a plans built could be nicer to my bank account (especially taking in account that I would need to pay VAT + customs + overseas shipping expenses for a fast built kit such as Velocity). If there would be someone else from Finland (or nearby in Scandinavia) and building/interested in canard aircrafts, please send me an e-mail and tell me about your project. I would of course like to get a ride on a such aircraft before proceeding to the decision to build. Best Regards, Karoliina Salminen http://www.karoliinasalminen.com

Hi, Short introduction (haven't told before, I just came to this forum): I am currently working as senior software engineer / project manager at Nokia. I can't tell much more about it except that my work somewhat involves open source stuff. My partner (who is also flying) has a company which does pretty nice embedded Linux devices based mainly on PowerPC family microprocessors. Those would be quite suitable for EFIS systems, in the case someone would be interested in Linux based avionics system. For more information, have a look: http://www.katix.org I have currently European UPL license (eligible to fly airplanes similar to U.S. Sports Plane category) but I am going to upgrade it to PPL in the future. Currently I am flying TL-96 Star ( http://www.tl-ultralight.cz ), EV-97 Eurostar and Ikarus C42. Despite of the variety of types of aircrafts I am flying, I am currently a very low time pilot as I just recently got the pilot's license. But that is going to change in the near term future, as I am spending as much time up there as possible I am looking forward for someday perhaps owning a canard aircraft, either purchased or self-built. Plans built aircraft could suit me better than a fast build kit as the expenses would be quite much lower for a plans built kit allthough it would consume more time and on the other hand, I would prefer to spend more time on the air than in the carage if possible but really, a plans built could be nicer to my bank account (especially taking in account that I would need to pay VAT + customs + overseas shipping expenses for a fast built kit such as Velocity). If there would be someone else from Finland (or nearby in Scandinavia) and building/interested in canard aircrafts, please send me an e-mail and tell me about your project. I would of course like to get a ride on a such aircraft before proceeding to the decision to build. Best Regards, Karoliina Salminen http://www.karoliinasalminen.com

I wish it would be that easy... Anyway, if someone has that knowledge (about aerodynamics), I think it would be a great idea. Here is the list of wished specs: - 450 ... 550 kg TOW - max 285 kg empty weight (excluding fuel) - all composite design - buble canopy - two seated, preferably side by side - Starship-style flaps - stall speed with flaps max 65 km/h - stall speed without flaps can be higher

In EU the IBIS could fit into ultralight b category if the stall speed would be lower. There is no top speed limit for ultra-b class in EU and therefore the top speed is no problem, only weight and stall speeds are. In order to fit into that category, IBIS should be modified perhaps so that it would utilize flaps (similarly to Rutan's Beech Starship), otherwise the 65 km/h stall speed will not be met (all other ultralights do it similarly, they normally stall at higher speeds, but with full flaps the speed have been able to lowered to the required range). In fact, a modified IBIS that would be composite instead of wooden design, and would utilize flaps similar to Beech starship and would have empty weight under 285 kg, and would use 80 hp Rotax 912ULS engine would be quite nice. If someone can accomplish that, I think there would be many many builders out there thorough the Europe. In fact, my proposal would be on the other hand, more like ultralight Long-EZ combined with Starship features than IBIS.