argoldman

Yes, John, I was just pulling your 1 meter leg (or is it 1 yard and some fraction) My point was that you are comfortable with what you are comfortable with. The end result will be the same. That's my $0.02 7/16 worth or is it $0.06375?

John, John, You are so lengthocentric. You look at measurements using 1/2 etc etc, because that is the way you were brought up in the measurement world. Change measurement to global politics and we have wars! I like the inch method because it is that upon which I was also brought. (how's that for you english majors.) The inch system is based on an arbitrary measuremet of a foot which is devided into 12 parts. The foot was the measurement of some king or other. Then for some reason they decided to think in base 12, except for yards which are base 12 thought of as base 3 and then miles which are the king's foot thought of as being in base 5280. Seems simple to me. With metric, you have a basic, arbitrary measurement (such as the foot originally was). Everything is in base 10 after the original assumption. Infinitely easier--- If you have done it all your life. All of science uses base 10. (except for the clowns with the original hubble iteration) You even use the base 10 (metric-type system daily) What is 1/16th of a dollar???? It is all bas 10. The odometer on your car, the hobbs meter, your navigation for your aircraft, your MP and RPM, Oil pressure, temp, OAT, interest rates, are all decimel (metric). But then we make it harder. Our clocks are based on 60, except for the days which are based on 60*60*24 then there is the week, 60*60*24*7 then there is the month which is 60*60*24*30,31,28 or even 29 add to this the yearly computation-- multiply this by 12. BUT then they go back to metric in terms of decade and century. Yes I, agree with you, that our system is much less complex than the UGH -- metric system. But then , of course, there is always Whitworth (I believe another english creation)!!! This bit of baffoonary took 325.236 seconds (I'll let you convert that to minutes if you wish:p

John, John, Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, as well as what they are committed to. When I had my dragonfly it seemed very normal, cute, in fact. I couldn't see what everybody liked about those darts that had to rest on their noses-- and of all things TWO vertical stabilizers with rudders that only deflected outward-- How odd. Now that I am committed (or should be) to my Aerocanard, that odd shape and configuration is suddenly gorgeous!!

Your design looks very much like a pregnant dragonfly. My suggestion is that you contact Andrew (works for NASA), on the dragonfly list, who spent many years developing a plane of similar configuration. Good luck.

The other thing you need to think about, should you make it longer, is, will the added weight of the structure that you are adding equal or exceed the additional weight that you must add (for your desired w/b) with the standard length nose. If it is a wash, or even slightly less, you will be doing a lot of work for nothing. You could always go on a reverse diet!

The job that keeps me from working on my Aerocanard non-stop is one headache after another. I am a dentist with my practice limited to head, neck and facial pain. Some time ago, I wrote a book entitled TMJ Sundrome the Overlooked Diagnosis. The aerocanard is my second homebuilt and my ninth aircraft. Wife Linda:) is an Art Psychotherapist. My car licence number is "HEADAKE". Linda wants to get one that says "HE GIVES ME A" ( After 40 years, I still have no idea what she is talking about!)

No Prob. that statement reminds me of a Steve Goodman song, "It aint hard to get along with somebody elses troubles" Seriously, I am so sorry to see the damage. A suggestion for your rhynoplsty- What you need to do is fully expose all of the front gear box, or what's left of it. cut off the damaged parts, use similar foam to repair (recreate) the missing parts do this on your bench, including gluing togehter of the box form. Adjust so that it fits the remaining parts. Prepare the old part by thoroughly sanding the edges back about 3" from where the repair will be 5 min the new part to the repair area. Glass outside and inside as per plans lapping onto the repair area at least 1 1/2" ( I would do at least 2-21/2") Add one extra layer of Bid @45 over repair area extending at least 1 1/2" past. I believe this is standard repair protocol. After the gearbox is repaired, maintaining the original dimensions, you can replace the skin foam, glass as directed, overlapping prepared surfaces by 1 1/2" minimum with one extra layer of Bid at 45 over juncture. If you want to, you can form your piece(s), remove them, glass the interiors (peel ply borders) when hard and trimmed, replace, tape edges, shape outside and glass as above. Good luck. I'm glad you are OK.

Try Airflow Performance

Jon, You can call your aircraft anything you want. There is no question but that we all owe Nat a debt of gratitude. (of course part of the debt has been paid through plans sales and kickbacks for materials purchased by builders from ACS and Wicks), but the debt is owed, non the less, for with out his incredible work and input, we would be flying long EZs and our GOSs (girls on side) would then be GIBs. However, unless Nat has copywrited or trade marked the name "COZY MK IV", since you are the manufacturer of your craft, naming it is solely up to you. Why don't you call it a "Modified Puffer?" Be aware that you may be hit by numerous frivelous law suits such as the type that put Jeff Russell out of business if you get to COZY. There may be some question about using Cozy name for the aerocanard kit since it has been approved under the 51% rule, and since that may have been part of an existing agreement.

A little heat on the metal parts will gooifiy the surrounding epoxy. Then extract and clean Don't overdo the heat. Use just enough to soften. I don't think that the temps we are talking about will change the characteristics of the metal. Someone with more knowledge, chime in. Rich

Greetings Devil, thanks for advocating. I guess it all boils down to what fits your style. I agree with the above. Initially the pump must be calibrated, subsequently, the remainder of each mix should be tested after hardened, before disarding the mixing cup-- no matter what the porportioning method is. (I believe that in certain conuntries, production of these cups is necessary for certification.) The method with the electronic scale vs the pterydactylic balance is good. I personally would have problems keeping the ratio sheet around, visible, free from notes and measurements written all over it. I'm the kind of builder that only cleans the hanger floor when it disappears under the by-products of the building process. After the cleaning, I can not find my tools etc. Sometimes I want to take a handfull of them and scatter them on the floor so I can find them. Although there might be some hyperoblie in the "multiple hours" statement, every hour that is spent doing something which does not move me forward, or using what is left of my gray matter, that doesn't have to be used, is wasted. (unless I enjoy it) The end result is the important thing, not necessarily how we get there. The important thing is that when a question is posed, answers from all different viewpoitns are profered and the ultimate decision is an "informed one":confused:

I agree and don't agree with everybody, (and anybody) I have used pumps, I have used scales, I have used balances. They all work. (been doing epoxy stuff for about 20 years). I started with the pump using Saf-t Poxy, switching to aeropoxy. I loved it. It is a real time saver and you don't have to think much about it. Occasionally I would porportion my epoxy by scales. After finishing my first plane, and being too lazy to clean my pump, I decided to fabricate an Aux tank. Because of the aforementioned laziness, I used the weight method. It worked, but took longer, was infinately messier (don't forget you need two cups, one which will remain with uncured goo and always seemed to be knocked over, expelling it's remaining contents (sticky) on the area, needed greater concentration for a good mix. Enter the Cozy. I needed a different pump for MGS (different ratios), and because of my prior experiences, immediately got a new variable ratio pump, and have been happy ever since. Dispensing wpoxy takes a matter of seconds, can be done on the fly. I made a heating cabinet of masonite with a 75W bulb. No thermostat or insulation ( I keep my hanger at a minimum of 45 degrees year round) The only difficulty I find with MGS crystilazing is at the tip of the Part B side of the pump. Very easy to remove with a screw or broken tongue blade. When I did my strake baffles and bulkheads, I decided to use EZ poxy. NO TANKS. I couldn't wait to stop that foolishness and get back to my pump. When I made my fuselage parts (at Aerocad, in their molds) I used the pump. It probably saved multiple hours. Having used both, (and sitll occasionally using both), I can say, without the question, the pump is the way to go. If you are old enough to remember the TR-3 (triumph sports car) They used to advertise it by saying, "If you see a car in back of you that looks like a bull dog, pull over, because it is going to pass you anyway. You will get a pump eventually. You will spend the same amount of $ for it, (perhaps get one that needs a little TLC at a good price). Why not have the pleasure and convienence right from the get-go. That's my idea of ratioing A&B, and I am stickying to it!

Greetings D. One thing that you want to do is learn how to do the quarter test.. This should actually be done at every inspection. It tells you if any delam has happened. What you do is tap the edge of a quarter (or similar coin) on the surface of the craft in as many places as possible. The sound that this creates will tell you if there is good bonded structure under the test point. The report is difficult to explain but is a clean sharp sound. If you hit a delam, it changes drastically to a duller thud. Find a composite plane and practice. (make sure you ask the owner first:rolleyes: . That's my $0.25 Just looking at the wing connect fixtures (3 through bolts- assuming they are the same as the Cozy, I would have some concern about corrosion. I wonder if it is possible for water to get there and the washers used to align the wing. Yes they are cad plated, however in installation, this surface might be compromized. If they have corrosion, this may effect the bushings through which they go and be a somewhat major job refurbishing. those that have had EZs outside for ages, and have actually examined these bolts would have a better handle on this. This brings me to the question, what can we do to try to prevent this type of corrosion, if indeed it happens. Although the bolt heads and the nuts are visible by removing the covers, the actual area in question is hidden from view with the wings on.

Had the cozy been available when I started the D-fly, I probably would have built it. I chose the 'fly because of the side by side seating. (wife says she sees the back of my head too often.

Rick, Thanks for the condolences. The plane flew very well and the hours spent in it were most enjoyable. I cruised at about 145 Mph at about 5.5 GPH with either my honey of 40 years, another pax or empty seat next to me. The sensitivity of the elevator disappeared shortly after starting to fly. One thing I did notice was because of the seating position, similar to Cozy, In turns your body does not sense the G forces nearly as much as in standard seating. About the only thing I didn't like was the lack of baggage room. With GIS (girl in side) and me in the 'fly, there was little room for much more than a toothbrush. I did have some luggage space over the wing, however W&B restrictions severely limited it's use. Aft loading that plane reminded me of the mechanical bulls which were popular years ago. I can't speak highly enough of composite construction (similar to Cozy's), as I am convinced that this combined with seat angle (and utilization of Temper foam-like material) is the reason I can speak at all.

Only the engine

NOT only opening, but pouring salt in the gaping wound!!! I built a Dragonfly Mk II-H (inboard hoop gear taildragger) over a period of 20 years. It was powered by a Diamond Midwest (nee Norton) Rotary with an Airmaster C/S electric prop. After 2 years and 100 hours of flight, I made a forced landing, just north of Peoria IL secondary to a partial engine stoppage (work slowdown) D-flys dont really like to land in small areas, especially with a 45 mph tail wind. I lived, with nary a scratch, the plane didn't. That happened 3 or 4 years ago. The remains sit in my hanger, more and more in the shadow of the growing Aerocanard. Soon, I will think of the final disposition.

My misreading. I thought by tandem canard, you meant tandem wing, not seating arrangements.

You are forgetting the original "real" tandem wing aircraft, the quickie, Q-2(00) and the Dragonfly. Of these, since the Quickie company is no longer with us, only the dragonfly (originally a plans made craft) survives under the wing of a company. I may be mistaken, but I believe that a South African company is producing parts for the D-fly (fuselages, etc). If you look, you can probably get a hold of one of the original Task made fuselage kits. I heard that the new owners of the design are looking to make it a 4 place.

My 10 votes go for MSG. ( In Chicago we can vote early and often, even after death) I have used e-z poxy, Safety-poxy and aeropoxy. MSG is a quantum level above the others in terms of wet-out, ease of handling, odor, appearance and bling-bling. (I use 285 but I understand that 335 has similar properties). I have never had to use a hair dryer on any MSG layup. (I use 50/50 mix of fast-slow hardener-- This may be too fast for many, but the nice thing is that you can regulate your cure time. Do not, however use this part B mixture with thick layer of flox in temperatures above 85 or 90 as you will get an exotherm I just switched back to e-z poxy for the internals of the strakes (supposed to be more fuel proof). I can't wait to get back to the MSG (I did make the fuselage tub and top with EZpoxy). Since I am going to use Jeffco as a final internal coat, I am seriously considering going back to MSG for the remainder of the tanks. I hope this shed some light on an otherwise sticky subject:bad:

Possibly not-but then again, possibly. However remember that the facet pump is a pretty good pusher and not a great sucker. If possible you want the inlet to be as close to the fuel level, if not below it, as possible. The solonoid-type action of this pump is not the direct motivator for the fuel pressure. The solonoid action retracts a piston like device against a spring. It is the spring pushing the piston that does the pumping. Different spring rates determine the pressure capacity of the pump. Speaking of pumps I am getting pumped up for OSH

Actually not true. I personally spoke to him about this. I know that he is an excellent canopy maker and wish that he could have made mine but the geometry of the SX cannot be done by his approach. (that was a few months ago) Todd claims that he cannot make the proper curvature. He suggested an alternate windshield which destroys the looks of the plane. The alternate windshield was offered to me, no cost, (not by todd) if I could modify the canopy frame, make it fit and document it. I declined the offer. I should pick up my new windshield and the rest of the parts in one week. :D Rich

J, I have an SX, however it is difficult for me to compare it to an FG since I have never sat in one. However my observations, with the above disclaimer in mind are that ther is more room, especially head room in the SX. The major factor that convienced me to do the SX was the shape of the windscreen. Instead of being pointed, it is more like a lancair type. ( I think Buly has a similar windscreen). This shape gives more precieved room in the cockpit. I believe my wife of 40 years will be comfortable with this configuration whereas I don't think that she would even get in a plane with the standard configuration. Although she has in excess of 1000 hrs flying with me in the right seat (4 of those in a homebuilt) in any case it will be a passel of conviencing and knee abrading to get her into this one, The windscreen may be the magic button, however. I'm not sure if the shape of the windscreen will create more drag since the frontal area is the same as the original (I may be talking out of my league here--- Marc rescue me) The roof line is higher than the original (an other plus for me) and that may add drag. One thing to be aware of is that the windscreen for the SX is difficult to form, cannot be done by Todd, and thus comes at a primium $wise. I should be picking mine up from AL the 13th of this month. :cool:

Greetings Jerms, I suggest that you contact Bruce Turrentine and Tracy Crook, the Rotary Gurus. I am not aware that the Renesis requires a larger prop, just a different gear ratio to allow it to rev higher. From what I understand the porting of the Renesis allows that (because of breathing) with somewhat of a better fuel burn. The cost that you stated above for the overhaul seems pretty close to the cost of a new renesis engine with ECU and PRSU. Bruce takes a new Renesis disassembles it, modifies it internally for aircraft use, provides an intake manifold, etc, etc. I believe, if available, he can rebuild a used renesis for a couple of thousand less. Tracy provides the gear box and electronics for spark and fuel injection. Both these guys seem to be a font of knowledge and are willing to allow you to pick their brains. The overhaul on the renisis is peanuts comparably.

In my last conversation with Jan, before the advent of his new gear box and expansion westward, (OSH 2005) I asked him about pusher application, at which point he stated in his typical matter of fact way that he has a defiant on which he is flying the Sube. Also in his typical way, he neglected to say that what kind of engine (h-4, or h-6) he was using, and he also neglected to say that he had less than 20 hours on it. It's unfortunate that it seems like he has eliminated this market from his possibilities, as I was very interested in the H-6. As I see it, he came out with this new belt reduction unit-- which self destructed due to FOD (easily avoided with a screen around the belts), determined that he could run the engine at various speeds to produce various max HPs. He then went to Sensenech to develop a 4 bladed composite prop. So far so good!. The testing is in a RV. The minimum diameter, however is 72". When I asked him about the cozy market, he said that he didn't think that the new prop would be appropriate and gave me the number of an MT prop 11# heavier, and costlier. It seems to me, that if he had a prop designed specifically for that engine, going to an MT prop, which he obviously rejected will be a step backward. I respect Jan for zeroing in on a specific market (RVs, and eventually smaller HP engines for recreational craft), however I think that us pusher folks will be left out in the prop wash and will be the testers (been there done that---- sucks) The rotary (crook, ET AL) is beginning to look better and better.