Len Evansic

Whoa Jon! Don't fall victim to this misconception. The danger of CO is that it blocks oxygen from being absorbed. You could asphyxiate in a 30% oxygen room if you had just a fraction of a percent of CO. Please have two CO monitors with you in your shop. One about a foot off of the floor, away from drafts and the heaters, and one on the opposite side of the room. That way if one of the detectors is malfunctioning (low battery) you still should have sufficient warning to get out and get the shop ventilated. -- Len

I remember scratching my head about this at Oshkosh, while looking at Gary's pods. My recollection is that they attach at the wing root and strake junction, and that a few of us were wondering aloud if they would interfere with the Infinity retracts. The consensus is that they would clear, but barely. Also that you could mount them outboard slightly more if you needed to. -- Len

Larry Hill of Muskoka, Ontario installed a Jabiru 5100 in his Cozy, and has been test flying it. I don't know him personally, but have been following his exploits on the Cozy Builder e-mail list. Unfortunately his last update was back in mid-August. The gist of his setup is that he got the 5100 in 2003, and spent a lot of time engineering everything, as nothing exists commercially to install this engine in any pusher. He could mount it more rearward, as it is lighter than the standard Lycoming, and it is smaller in width, so there was plenty of room to install it under the cowls. I think there are a few others doing this too, but nobody has trumpeted their success or failures yet. -- Len

That's what you metric types think. Truth be told, the bowels of NASA have been and still are still in inches. About 15 years ago, a classmate of mine had an internship at NASA, working on some space vehicle program. His job was to take their existing drawings for this long-running project, and convert them to metric. So, being brought up in the utopian metric system, he did calculations and conversion in the soft manner that would yield nice convenient metric measurements, like 4" becomes 100 mm, vs. the 101.6 mm that a hard measurement would yield. So Phil (my friend) finished his stack of drawings and took them to his supervisor, where he learned that what they had expected of him was hard conversions. Even of english threads! Imagine finding a M7.94 x 1.411 thread callout. That was the way that NASA operated. The heavy lifting was done with good old SAE, while SI was smeared on afterwards to make those european partner types happy. -- Len

Best of luck to you and Gail for this weekend. Keep us updated. When you say the changes in wind tunnel physics are drastic, I'm hoping that means greatly improved. Although this would definitely mean a lot more work to correct fudges for less-good physics. I share your feelings about using sims for training. Here in upstate NY, it is really difficult to count on good weather, so X-plane has been a Godsend in keeping an edge between flights. I'm still working on my PPL, and am a LONG way away from flying my own canard, so I can't offer feedback on the models, but I enjoy your 7.x models immensely. -- Len

Curt, I'm sorry. Got my K's and C's confused again. It doesn't help that I stare at machine vises made by Kurt all day. -- Len

That's a good one I'll have to remember. Thanks Kurt. The French aren't all that bad at engineering, just... What is the word? Odd? I mean their automotive efforts were less well-received than Saab's, and only recently has Airbus (with a LOT of French government funding) been able to compete with Boeing and their rather dated designs. Not to say that Boeing doesn't get our government funding, just that they don't for commercial passenger jets. -- Len

When I got into justifying building a Cozy, I was dead-set on using a Subaru engine. The further I go, the more apprehensive I am about every engine option that is available to us. My current mindset is that after I win the lottery, I'll get a new Lycoming clone engine like the XP-360 TNIO model to get the plane in the air, and then build up a firewall-aft Subaru package with a PRSU that has built-in CS prop capabilities to bring down the vibrations. Since I'm fairly sure that I won't win the lottery, and such a PRSU doesn't currently exist, I am left to worry myself with a backup plan. All three of the planes that I fly in my flying club had to have their Lycoming engines replaced this year, one from an in-flight failure and the other two because of signs of impending doom (all three before TBO). The cost of these overhauls was a real kick to the groin of our club, and it gives me pause when considering any rebuilt Lycoming. These weren't new engines, but were overhauled several times before by qualified A&P's. It is the uncertain age and condition of the components on the vast majority of available Lycoming engines that scares the crap out of me and makes me keep thinking about automotive conversions. Yes there is a lot of work and a lot of compromises to go the Subaru route. I'm willing to go that way if only to blaze a trail to an economical solution that avoids the uncertainty of used Lycomings. -- Len

And another thing.... It wasn't until very recently (the last five years or so) that true dimensional metric metal stock became available. As recently as 1997, I was ordering 102mm bar and tube stock for a european project, which is identical to our 4" stock. Common sense would dictate that 100mm stock should exist to make metric fabrication easier, but it didn't. No dimensional metric stock existed for over 100 years after SI became a standard! -- Len

I'll bite. On your website, I see "Below is our current range of systems which are either working prototypes, in-build prototypes or at pre-build design stage..." All I see is renderings from CAD models and small images without much, if any detail. By the way, your finite element runs which are proudly displayed are poorly modeled at best, and show nothing in particular at worst. Where are the photos of your working or in-build prototype, preferably one carrying a human? If you can get half the performance that your spec. pages list with your 6 kg motors, and an on-board power supply, the world will beat a path to your door. Without any meat, you risk having the world see you as another Moller, except he actually made money off of patents, and he has a working tethered prototype. Direct lift is very inefficient, but desirable for the duties you portray on your website. You would be better off attaching your wonder-motors to a more conventional design like an airplane or geared down to a helicopter before going whole-hog. I'd love for your venture to succeed and for you to prove my assertions wrong, but it is hard for me to justify getting excited at this point. Get the smoke and mirrors (flash) off your site, and maybe more people would investigate your company's technology seriously. Until then, it's the digital equivalent of a snake oil salesman. -- Len

I assume you are referring to the infinity gear. It's supply vs. demand. J.D.'s supply can't keep up with the demand at $5,000 per set, so the price will not come down anytime soon. I'd imagine that he'd still have trouble keeping up if the price was increased. While I also wish the price was lower, from what I've seen, the gear is solid and well-constructed. I started with wanting retracts, and have beat myself into accepting the thought of using fixed mains. Times and financial circumstances may change though. -- Len

For those who didn't attend Oshkosh, or for those that didn't get a chance to see everything, I thought I'd share what I found in the realm of engines and props. I'll start with the long-standing vapors first, and then move to shipping engines as I progress. I didn't get to see everything, so if anyone out there has anything to add, please do so. Delta Hawk - Delta Hawk (DH) Diesel was at the show at several locations, with several finished engines. They looked very polished and ready to go, but deliveries were stated to start around December 2005. They flew and displayed their Delta Hawk Velocity, and published a comparison test between their plane and an identical IO-360 powered plane. As the DH is only around 150 HP with a turbo and supercharger, it really outshone the NA Lycoming at altitude and fuel consumption. Price was stated as whatever it says on their website, which hasn't changed for three years. They did say that they anticipate a price increase "shortly" to account for increasing material cost. DH has partnered with Kurt manufacturing (known for machinist tooling) to produce their engines in higher quantities and showed several pictures with tables full of parts (one picture had the cores of about 10 superchargers). My impression of the DH now, after seeing one, is that I think it is stupid to supercharge and turbocharge the same engine. It adds unnecessary complexity. My gut feeling is that they turbocharge to muffle the exhaust and to normalize to sea level, and supercharge because the engine needs more air because they probably have a low compression ratio. If I could afford this engine, I would still pass on it at this time, as I think it needs to develop an independent track record. Innodyn Turbine - Vaporware extraordinaire Innodyne was well represented at the show in both their own booth as well as a firewall-forward installer. I counted four of their turbine engines that I saw with my own eyes, including one in a plane, two polished show models and one more-bland engine in a crate. The firewall-forward provider (name escapes me now) stated fall delivery of these engines. They also showed off their Twin-Pack, which is two of their turbines mated to the same PSRU. Even though it would be loud, the mind boggles with the amount of power that would be generated in the same amount of weight as an O-360. I didn't get prices, as even their low fuel consumption (for a turbine) is still a bit high for Cozy strakes. This vapor may actually materialize this fall. AES/V Aero (Bombardier/Rotax) - The Bombardier water-cooled V engines were back this year, with nary a reference to Bombardier or Rotax in their tent. These engines are quite complex, and quite heavy for the power they produce. A young engineer at the booth told me close to 600 lbs. installed for power in the 200 hp range. He also confided that everybody had been looking for an engine that slotted into a gaping hole in the Rotax line-up, one that was the same weight and power of a Lycoming IO-360. They showed the engine installed in a Murphy bush plane, but aren't ready to deliver anything yet, and are still testing the water. Honda/Continental OL-370 - OK, so this engine wasn't here at the show, but I did get some more information on it. The Honda Aero Engines booth was staffed not by Honda employees, but by GE engineers who knew nothing about this engine at all. Taking this nugget of information, I wandered to the TCM tent and asked around for some information there. Apparently, The engine that Honda showed two years ago was just a research model. It was quite complete, and for the industry, developed. That isn't how Honda viewed it though. That engine was a trial balloon to gauge consumer reaction. Even though it was in-effect a concept model, it was actually a water-cooled, direct-drive, lighter than an IO-360, 225 HP aircraft engine that went through very thorough testing. No what? Well, Honda and Continental are now in the development stage. What I was told is that the final engine will have at least all of those original specs, but will be a completely different engine. Best guestimate for availability was two-years out, but possibly longer. Engine Components (ECI) - Titan Kit - I'm not a Lycoming fan, but ECI is doing yeoman's work to make new Lycoming engines more affordable. At their booth, there was an IO-360 kit-engine which in Lycoming parlance means non-certified. The kit for this constant-speed prop engine was quoted at $14,000. Now, this is still many times higher than an auto-conversion engine alone, and it comes as a collection of parts, not an assembled engine, but the end result is a brand new Lycoming clone engine, with all new parts with tighter tolerances than the original. This engine will bolt-on directly, and is piece for piece compatible with any Lycoming engine. The availability of this engine, along with Superior's XP-360 line, are forcing Lycoming to bend. Lycoming - Yes, Lycoming had some new stuff, although not at their booth. Earlier in the year, Lycoming decided to add roller lifters, and announced that they would start putting them on new engines. Now, they will retrofit them into older engines in factory rebuilds as well. Ready for this; Lycoming kit engines. These new kit engines from Lycoming are just like ECI's, even not being certified, except that they will only ship them to six assemblers. Several different models in the 320, 360, 390, and 540 families are part of this kit program, all utilizing roller lifters. This seems to be a direct shot at Superior. Not quite sure about the 210 hp IO-390-X (or XYZ-390), since it is for only the experimental market anyway, but it is part of the program too. Lycoming also now has their own version of a FADEC, called EPiC. Apparently it relies on different cylinders that use automotive spark plugs and Lightspeed electronic ignitions! Yes, this is Lycoming. Superior - Superior's focus was on thier XP-360 Plus engines with roller lifters, as well as showing off Thielert's diesel auto conversions and FADEC for the XP-360 family. They had an TNIO XP-360 at the show that is apparently exclusively sold to Lancair builders. No prices yet, and I'm not sure why it is exclusively for them since many Lancairs have Continental TSIO-550's in them, but that's what their sign says. Superior is still expensive, and unlike ECI, even more expensive if you want to assemble your engine from parts. Mistral - Mistral was there with a sharp looking 13B-derived rotary. What caught my eye was their PSRU had a governor for a CS prop, which is absent on all other rotary PSRU's (to my knowledge). The engine management and fuel injection system was also quite nice with multiple redundancy from sensors to circuitry. While I was at the booth, Tracy Crook was admiring this feature, and kibitzing with the Mistral engineer. I only caught a little bit of the conversation, but apparently there are a few known issues between purveyors of aviation rotary engines, that I have not heard acknowledged or discussed before by adherents to this technology. As I was not part of the conversation, and only heard bits and pieces, I cannot really judge how big these problems are, but one had to deal with finding a coating for the chamber and rotors. New CS prop option There is a new constant speed prop alternative to the MT prop that is designed for pushers, and this one is not electrically driven. That's the good news, the bad news is that it costs $13,100. Aero Composites Inc. developed this prop for 180-310 hp engines. It looks really sharp, and given the high maintenance cost of the MT prop, it may work out to be cheaper in the long run. Deliveries start late-summer to early fall. They told me at the booth that this prop has opposite twist blades for the pusher configuration. One of their customers used an LTIO-360 with a normal CS prop, because this new model wasn't finished yet. -- Len

I missed it live too, but am grateful that Gary decided to let Marc share it with the community. On to Jerry's shop. I had thought about putting up a temporary structure for a workshop, but my wife wouldn't let me. Have you had any regrets or wishes with your setup? How much did it cost to erect and outfit? Thanks for any further info in advance. -- Len

I'm going out to Oshkosh (driving unfortunately). I should be in on Sunday (7/24) and will be staying the whole week, leaving Saturday evening. -- Len

That's a good question. I was contemplating the same myself. With the recent increase in price for MGS (I had assumed that the dollar/euro thing had already kicked in), I find myself searching for a less expensive alternative. I would like to build my plane using a consistent system throughout, but now I'm thinking of using several systems to save costs. In my gut, I think this is a bad idea. I mean, it's hard to tell what the bond strength between different types will be. I know that some people use WEST for finishing, but others for structural. Not sure about multiple structural epoxies. I really wish there was a domestic equivalent to MGS 285, or a less expensive re-branding. The smell of the current alternatives is a big issue for me and my wife. Unfortunately, nobody seems to know of one. -- Len

I found this photo with a brief google search. This looks suspiciously like the Freebird Extreme in this thread. The differences being the AERIKS 200 exists and has a single vertical stabilizer. -- Len

Keith didn't use Eggenfellner. He rebuilt the SVX motor himself and mated it with a Ross PSRU. Much less expensive. -- Len

I'm posting this in multiple places to see where the discussion may wind. I've asked Keith Spreuer for permission to share his setup and performance data with the web forums, and Keith was kind enough to let me do this. Anyway, Keith recently flew his long-in-progress Subaru-powered Cozy Mk. IV with an IVO Magnum prop, and got some startling performance. For some context, Keith found out that his engine had slipped timing before he acquired it ten years ago, and in the last three weeks, he was able to diagnose this problem and get flying. From Keith's e-mail to Marc's list: Keith's site is here. -- Len

Ya know, the more I see of the Cozy Girrrl's plane, the more I want to build an EXACT replica of it. Front-opening canopy, the strakes, retracts, BMA panel. All of it. Well maybe all of that plus a few inches for shoulder/head room. I gotta get building... -- Len

You're ignoring the fact that their wing configuration is not close to a conventional low wing and that I was concerned with submerged wings. The Be-103's leading edge is mid-fuselage (like a Cozy), while the trailing edge is at the absolute bottom of the fuselage. Likewise, the leading edge is designed to be above the waterline, so that the entire bottom surface of the wing is a planing surface. I'd like to see the Be-103 land with gusts, or with a pilot who comes in with one wing low, catching a tip. I do concur that our model's success did not guarantee it's success when fully scaled up, but as a boat, I'm confident that it wouldn't have been a submarine. As for flying, it was only designed to 'fly' in ground effect and it used step foils to break free of water surface friction. Our design spec. was to design a boat that happened to fly, so that it would be under the jurisdiction of the state Fish and Game Commission, rather than the FAA. It succeeded in this regime. I know boats very well, and I'm trying to learn about planes. I know I have far to go. -- Len

You will need some help here. Water provides a lot more drag than air, so it's not a good idea to have these touching the water, ever. What I mean is that with a high mounted propulsion source, and the canard (as well as much of the hull) in contact with the water, you will find that you will more likely have a submarine than a seaplane. You should mount your canard higher, and have pontoons extending down from the main wing for stability. It would also help if the front of your fuselage was a bit wider, and more shovel-shaped. Stability on water will depend on keeping the nose up until the wings can take over. My senior design project for my undergrad degree was working on a flying boat project. The first design delivered by the aerospace students we were working with looked like a low-wing lear jet with stubby wings. A definite submarine. Our final design was a high-wing, high angle of attack, high aspect ratio pusher configuration with a floating hull and small pontoon wingtips. The model we built worked well. -- Len

Wow! Congratulations Marc! I hope that doesn't mean that you will stop answering questions and giving good advice. Even needling me when I come up with half-baked newbie logic. Now I'm kinda bummed. That's one less flying canard in my sorta-near geographic area. Still, this is great news! -- Len

I wondered that before as well. I know that the Beech Starship's canards change sweep in flight, but I suspect you mean like a stabilator. I proposed this once to counter impending stalls, and was basically told that it was too much of a change to be done without extensive testing. I was also proposing a secondary fly-by-wire system to activate the moveable canard, so in hindsight, I admit that I was adding unneeded complexity. Quite often the response from people much more experienced and wiser than myself is to "Build it to plans, first" and worry about modifications later. This can be frustrating and it may seem that they are trying to stifle innovation, but their concern is for the safety of the community and protecting us from innovating an untimely end. -- Len

I stand corrected, but still think it is a bad idea. My reasoning was based on what others have told me about changing the canard configuration, and I was not aware of the elevons in the early Vari-EZE. I need to read more of the historical info out there. -- Len

You don't want your ailerons on the canard, because it is so highly loaded and designed to stall first. If you had ailerons there, instead of on the main wing, you would have a very difficult time controlling the plane in even the slightest bank, with unintentional and almost uncontrollable pitching. Think of the canard as a forward tail. Outside of V-tail Bonanzas with rudder-vators, no other plane uses the horizontal stabilizer for bank control. Even on the Bonanzas, the ailerons are still on the wings, and the V-tail combines the rudder and elevator actions. The horizontal stabilizer and elevators are for pitch control and balancing the CG with respect to the center of pressure of the main wing. Likewise, the canard and the elevators on the canard are for pitch control and provide lift to balance the CG load with the main wing. -- Len