argoldman

You don't necessiraly need a longer propeller. Increasing the chord of the blade or increasing the number of blades will suffice. As far as low RPM, Eggenflellner is now using very low RPMs in his Subary H-6. He has had a 4 blade prop developed for his engine/PSRU combination. A problem for pushers is that the minimum diameter is 72" and untested in that environment. It seems as Eggenfellner is uninterested in this market and is aiming primarily for the RV. Too bad.

The transponder antenna will need a ground plane at its base (the top-- the antenna faces down) this must be approximately 6" in diameter. (not sure of the exact minimum diameter). A suggestion would be to extend it so that your buns or other appendages are shielded by it from the tip of the antenna. This may alleviate the problem of well done meat.

Welcome to the fold Jamie. Your decision to build the cozy, I think was wise. There are several advantages. Primarily, if you and your wife intend to travel any amount, the rear seat is a great baggage compartment also available for dogs, cats, and wallabies. in a long or veri, your small duffles are on your lap, or being shipped by common carrier. You also have the ability to put a couple more souls in the craft should you be able to convince them to fly with you. Another benefit is in the construction, especially in the "hell hole". Having a wider fuselage will give you much more access to difficult places and make the construction easier since you can climb inside with plenty of room.

Ah, jon, A boxy canopy gives more lateral head room and gives less of a claustraphobic feeling in the cabin.

As with most things FAAoid, the final decision is up to the inspector/DAR. It would be a good idea to get in touch with the inspector that you will be using, assuming he/she is still alive after the build, and ask him/her what he/she would like to see as substantiation of your build. At a bare minimum, a photo album of your work. Don't forget that the more information you give, the less of a hard time you can be given. Additionally, make sure that all of your paperwork is complete and completed properly. Good luck

You could possibly use SS, however, I don't know if you would gain much. What you would loose is the ability to easily drill. SS, especially at 1/4" is a bear to drill free hand, as you will be doing when you mount your engine mount. I believe it needs slow speed and much pressure. If you could affix your drill press to the FW, that would be another matter. Aluminum is so much easier to drill. Additionally, the stresses put on the FW at those points is distributed through many layers of fiberglass on it's way to the fuselage. I'not sure if the material was chosen for it's tensile strength, as much as it's resistance to hole elongation -vs- the wood firewall (this is merely conjecture).

I seem to remember that some tests I did years ago on wing foam that it liquified close to 200F. This was many years ago and I could be wrong, but I was testing the material to see if post curing at 180F was damaging... Sorry I can't remember the details.

Weight penalty of about 2 oz and increased cost of the additional aluminum

On my dragonfly, I hard shelled the wing and wet lay-upped the canard. I found the hard shelling to be much more time consuming with little real benefit. If I were to hard shell again, I would peel ply the micro smear.-- I shell not do it again, however! Rich

Jon Unless you have a large shop, stay with the two smaller tables. When you are done with the large parts, you can separate them, get rid of one or use it to serve your guests while you build on the other one.

Actually, John, I had four, but my wit was only operating at 1/2 speed

The weight carrying capability and it's location is not a product of the construction strength of the aircraft,(all right-- for you purests useful load is) but is solely a product of appropriate W&B. Keep yourselves safe and learn how to do these calculations, especially in an EZ type craft. When done with your plane (and before this stage to determine where to place your battery and other heavy objects) do a weighing W&B. This will tell you all you need to know in terms of what and where and how much you can place it in the aircraft (and if you have to loose weight) (subject, of course to flight testing approaching these limits). Remember the W&B stats given in the manual are for one aircraft only, the prototype. These figures may or may not be accurate for yours(although they may be close). Your specific configuration may or may not need ballast. You may or may not be restricted to the stated front seat loading. There are a lot of may or may-nots but they can all be answered by clculation. The next time someone says to you, "Wait a moment," A anardian should hear, "WEIGHT AND MOMENT" Just thought I'd give a balanced view

I donno the exact answer. I do know that I have Aerocanard kit serial # 50. Of course the numbering system could have started at 48. It seems, however that prior to Al's taking the company, that Jeff did produce a significant # of kits.

Todd, Get all of the supporting documentation that you can. You probably will be able to get it done with a form 337 and understanding Fisdo and A&P. Your avionics shop may just not want to bother. Any A&P can do the install and fill the paperwork for the 337 (after the concept is approved by FAA.(I think). On a certified aircraft, don't ask for forgiveness after you haven't asked for permission. It is possilble that they will ground you if you do.

Tony, I would not use a syphon as that does not simulate the actual situation. The syphon could be anywhere in the tank and miss some of the material that would eventually find its way where the sun don't shine. Instead feed to the pump from the fitting that will eventually feed your filter. This way, the fuel will circulate the way that the operating engine and pump will do it. the output of the pump can be routed to the fuel filler, or to the vent. Don't smoke or use a match to see fuel level while doing this. do only in a well ventelated area. Gasolend vapors are heavier than air, I believe so crack the hanger door

Greetings Tonyslo, Fuel bladders are a solution to metal tanks that, for one reason or another can't seal. When good, they work well, however there are many problems. The cessna AD on bladders, I believe was because the way they were attached (or misattached) to the wing allowed wrinkling of the bottom of the bladder, which trapped water, made it impossible to drain at the lowest place, and water injestion happened when the plane was josteled in flight. One has only to look at commercial concerns that are born out of fixing and replacing these devices. A semi-major industry is buildt around reconditioning, repairing and/or replacing these bladders. (at OSH there are atleast 2 companies which display.) These bladders are subject to drying out (if left other than totally full) chafing damage if not installed properly, aiging and loosing their elasticity, and damage during fueling due to the filler cutting the bladder around the neck or at the bottom of the bladder, among many other maladies. If you look at bladderinclusive aircraft, you will notice that there is always a largish inspection-type plate around the filler neck and other possible sites. This is necessary because the bladder must be placed in this hole, and using very long arms, the bladder is clipped to the structure in which it fits. This clipping is necessary to keep the tank from folding over on itself and decreasing the amount of available fuel. Look at the bladder access panels on store-builts, and just imagine the skinned knuckels, cut arms, and expansion of the english- or other- language while attempting to install the bladder through these all too small access ports. They are also quite expensive and weighty. In terms of fuel hygiene, what I did with my dragofly, and intendto do with my aerocanard, is to reflux fuel from the tank, through a filter, returning it back to the tank. Start with full tanks,with only a little air space above to allow liquid adgitation in the tanks. I did this with a facet pump for a period of about 3 solid days, periodically vigorously shaking the craft to dislodge any glass or foam detritis that may have remained in the tank. Check the filter frequently. If ther is still stuff seen, after the first couple of cleanings, continue until clear. Don't cheap out and fill the tanks only partially full, the bad stuff may be hanging near the top. For economy, perhaps use auto fuel, then use it iin your car later ( If you don't want to use it in your aircraft. Since the fuel is constantly being filtered, it should be good. This, of course, assumes that in your construction, you maintain strict hygienic control of the tanks. Ah, but you say...... I can put these things in before sealing the strakes. That will work for a while.. But the reason why the big boys make them removable is because they will eventually need service. If you glass tanks are made properly, they are much better than bladders. Save bladders for the subject of another string which occurred earlier--- relief tubes.

Greetings CF, The URL is www. soontobeasitewhenigetaroundtoit.com Actually, time is in such short supply, I will set up the site when time is available. Altough I closed my office to patients for the year, I left my house at 5:30AM to come to the office and do final paperwork for the year to allow me to get to the airport and glass glass glass. All I can say is soon. I have collected bunches of digitals which I will be happy to share. When I get it up (that doesn't sound exactly right) I will notify all. I have no idea of when Al will finish the plans. I have done some rewriting of mine and have edited some of the videos, and I can tell you personally that it is a monumental task. Far more difficult than one would imagine. Al is somewhat of a perfectionist and my guess is that this will extend to the plans. It will be worth the wait, however long that may be. The extreme cold in the Midwest will aid this as cold and glass, especially with high gas costs shift emphasis to working (writing) in small warm spaces. Sunday I will be off to Palm Springs CA. for a week--Anybody have a flying Cozy or project there, or at Ontario airport??

I just got off the phone with Marie, from Ken Brock Mfg. (his wife, I believe). She announced to me that Ken Brock Mfg co. will be closing its doors the first week of January. She thought the company was sold, sold the building and the business. The purposed buyer, one of several, pulled out... Perhaps a possible investment for some enterprising builder. If you want brock stuff, she is selling off her stock.

Rick, Ya, What Jon said. I am in the processs of building an aerocanard SX kit (from the new owner Al.) It is essentially the same as the FG with a different windshield and back top. I can't compare building the kit with building a plans FG, however I can compare it with building a scratch Dragonfly, which is essentially the same construction technique. The kit saves gobs of time. The prefab parts, created in a mold come out almost ready for painting. Smoothing moldless construction structures, as you create in the scratch-built, is an incredibly time consuming project, if you want it to be good. There is little of that with the kit fuselage, or strakes. At this point, you still have to make all of the bulkheads, trim all of the factory supplied parts etc. and assemble. It is not like a plastic airplane kit that you put together as a kid. you still have to build a lot of the structure. I hope to be making a website of my project soon. Getting the kit puts the construction into warp speed. (well almost). The factory produced parts are well made and exterior finish, in genreal, is excellent. I understand that the construction manual is being rewritten at this point, a much needed change. If you are interested in learning about the construction techniques, you can get a copy of "building the Rutan composites" tape or disk (the EAA might have this,) or order the DVD set from Aerocanard. (has the same basic info as the above tape plus the video of building an aerocanard. WARNING!!!!! this set may become habit forming and necessitate puting a shop together for building one. You can get a composite materials practice kit from aircraft spruce P/N 01-15000 for about 60$ and actally get epoxy under your fingernails (and all over your best clothes. Best of luck,

Give the newspapers coodos for another job well done!! According to them, Velocity now has a two place version. (I must have missed that model) Although I do agree that a control tower (and probably a Class B airspace around that airport) would have avoided that crash due to engine failure!!! now if you will allow me to extract my tongue out of my cheek I will stop.

Additionally, when you replace glass with carbon, in a composite setting, you are dealing with problems that need an engeneer with extensive composite experience. Although carbon is better in tensile strength per gram than glass, if mixed with glass, when, and if the glass yields (at its tensile), it will place an explosive load (for want of a better non engeneering word) on the remaining carbon fibers which may cause their rippage before their appearent tensile boundry. This is not to say that carbon/glass/foam composites don't work (the Dragonfly used carbon fiber exclusively for spar caps in wings, canard and vertical stabilizer, it is only to say, that if you are going to consider it, consult with a composite engeneer, for your own safety.

Len, Please be advised that I have no relationship with Egg, except that I am considering one of his engines. I don't know if Egg does any specific modification to the basic engine itself. With his used engines, (the bulk of what he sells), he claims to hunt for "cherry", low mileage engines from rollovers or rearended wrecks that have low milage, he does a compression check, visual inspection, car-fax evaluation of the car, and builds from there. I don't think that he does anything to the engine, itself. If a new engine, he defeats the Idle valve timing shift mechanism. I think that his PRSU, itself is in the retail neighborhood of $5900.00 itself. I'm sure that he gets a good premium for assembling the package. What he does provide is an intake manifold, engine mount, exhaust system, cooling system that have been shown, by his testing to work together properly. By scrounging, you probably can do a lot better $ wise. As in most things aeronautical, there is a compromise. If you can copy what he has done, exactly, or copy someone else that has done something successful, then you have no R&D. If you are doing a one of a kind, all of the R&D is on you, all the multiple parts that you have had to buy and discard, and of course all of the time, you may find that the premium charged for an operating package (if indeed it is) may not appear as confiscitory as it seems. I have done my own R&D on using a Midwest Rotary engine in my Dragonfly, and a quite aware of the cost in time and money involved in such an endeavor. Since I am getting more "mature" (spelled older), I don't know if I personally want to spend 1 -2 years on engine tweaking) If you join the Soob list, and/or get Contact Magazine (recommended) you will get all kinds of opinions and techniques that others have used in their conversions. One other, unfortunate fact is that insurance companies are beginning to look at non-aircraft engines as being uninsurable, or with very low insurability. Purchasing an engine package, such as with Egg, (and a few other specific vendors) enables normal insurance availability.

Len, Don't know much about the crossflow, but I am told that the Egg is a complete firewall back (not including prop, spinner or cowl.) system, including engine, electronics, injection, exhaust, engine mount, PRSU, cooling system etc. Jan tells me that he is proving the pusher in his Defiant. The non-standard installation (pusher) is an additional 500$. I think that his prices just went or are about to go up (for the 6 cylinder)because of the new PRSU that he has designed (according to him, raising the max power to 220HP)

Todd, Isn't the TS-11 just a metal Long EZ with the tail on the wrong end, before the propeller is mounted? -- A beautiful plane!!

There is another reason for going automotive (sube 6 cyl or rotary) and that is the extreme reduction in fatigue causing vibration from those four huge cylinders firing.