argoldman

I asked Zoche in 1998 the first time about his engine when my Velocity was still bits and pices in the garage. He mentioned it will take another 2 years to get it certified. I was in Munich to visit him he did not have time.

An other canadr builder in South Africa also contacted him reasently and the 2 year story came up again.

My personal opinion: He got paid to stop the progress and he cashed in on an German award for some engineering achivement.

The website is zoche.de

 

He is probably siting on his payment and has nothing to worry, not like Thilert he has grey hair by now.

I heard the same story in 1982:sad:

Ah....what a wonderful feeling this will be even to consider top speeds in the lower altitudes. I actually forgot them all as I never came really close to those with my Cirrus. Now that I am going into the Velocity Turbo I have to....fantastic !!!!

 

250 under level 140 is not bad (I actually think that it will just tip this at that altitude, the top speed will be in the higher levels, which I probably will test once to see how it is and then stay under level 180 anyway (too hostile without pressurization I think, to many things can go wrong than)

 

Sure we can wear mask etc, but just imagine you are turning your body and sit on the tube.....and not even knowing that you are slowly getting stupid without the extra needed oxygen (just one of my 'what if' scenarios LOL)

 

I actually wish they had a cannula or nose piece that would allow safe flights in the higher altitudes.....but so far I did not seen anything that is safe and comfortable.

AD,

Use a pulse oxymeter (and don't sit on the tube)

The real prob with Oxy is that it is very dry and you will dry your nasal passages:mad:

Wow. Appears mighty close to my Fein.

 

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=65700

 

Looks like other manufactures are finally seeing a market here as well.

The blades sure are cheaper.

the current draw is similar to the fein. this might be the old*version of the fein that they are marketing though Freight. that would be great. I could use another one.

i had my 57 t-bird filled from dead empty to about 1/3 full (we ran out of gas in a farm land) and it started, and ran, as we got to the interstate it seamed as if it were running like a diesel (low power and sound) so i asked are grate host and he said that he was a farmer and always got gas from the diesel pump. so we filled it up the rest of the way with 92 and drove 100 miles home .

My understanding is not that a 100 LL engine won't burn jet (diesel) and that the problem with mixing the fuels with a mistake at the pump is not that the engine will just stop, but is the fact that there is more energy available from the jet and at high power will destroy the engine because of this increased energy.

But then I could be wrong, this is an election year.

does the regulator have to be grounded

You might also want to contact B&C about heat rejection. If the heat sink on the item also uses its base bolted to a metal firewall, by eliminating this, you might have an overheating situation. Perhaps a heat sink on the back with standoffs would be appropriate. Just a thought!

Attached to this post is a sample of the data directly from the RMI Micro Monitor. A while back Waiter had offered to take a look at it to develop a more visual interface for it, but I'm not sure the quality of the data is worth the effort. A couple of notes ...

 

- The data sample resolution is set to 1 minute increments. You cannot get any better resolution, so any sort real-time monitoring is impossible with the RMI micro monitor.

 

- I need to install a 9V battery source to maintain the clock or hardwire it with a fuse directly to the B&C battery. The clock, and possibly all of the calibration settings, go away when you turn the master off.

 

- I get OAT from the RMI micro encoder, but obviously the two arent talking properly. Ugh!!

 

- I have no idea why the GMT clock counts down, then up, then down, then counts up properly. No idea. Ugh!!!

 

- No way the OT was at 84F after 5 or so minutes of engine run time. Must be a calibration issue. Ugh!!

 

- I dont believe the OP readings are correct, but I cant explain why. The on-screen value 'floats' when the engine is off / cold. If I turn on the unit (but dont start the engine) right now, the value will 'float' up to about 35, then float slowly down to about 25. Ugh!!

 

- I had the engine up to what I know by ear was about 1500 to 1800 RPM. The data shows 1000 RPM max. Must be that I didnt have it there at one of the 1 minute data points. Ugh!!

 

- One would think that fuel flow (FF) would trend toward the RPM setting given that the mixture was full rich the entire time. Not true with this monitor. Ugh!!

 

- Looks like I got a peak of 46 amps at one point. Geez, that seems like a lot ... or is it the monitor? Who knows ... ugh!!!

 

Again, does anyone have any relevant experience with installing, setting up and calibrating the RMI suite? Help!!!

The Micromonitor and encoder are two super units, but like all things they are very sensitive to installation errors.

The temperature situation may be as simple as the fact that you mounted the sensor (a small transistor thing) on or near an area that gets hot with the engine running. These must be mounted in free outside air, not in an enclosed area.

Is this a new unit?

Did you build it??

Did you burn it in?

Have you checked that your wiring is correct?

Check specifically that the grounds are where RM says to put them and that power for the transducers come from the proper pins (assume nothing)

Did you follow the installation instructions?

Is your flow transducer mounted in accordance with instructios (very important that no turbulence is admitted?

Are your sensors correct (as specified)?

Did you go through the calibration process?

Did you go through the calibration process correctly?

Have you called Ron Mowrer (of rocky Mountain)-- He is very helpful.

To double check if the data that is being presented is correct, mount a camera, looking at the face, and shoot a pix every 30 sec or more often if you like.

Good luck, when you get the instruments working correctly you will love them.

Guin,

I can't comment on the Dremmel but the important thing that Fein conquered is a small angular rotation with incredible power. The speed also seems to be important as too fast and it will melt/burn the structure you are working with. Dremel made its reputation, not because of the power the rotary instruments deliver, but the high speed and thus their effectiveness. If they are trying to duplicate that with the new tool, it will probably be great for sanding veneer on cabinets but insufficient for your needs.

Maybe, if you pay a little extra for it and get it from a store to which you can return it, you can cover all bases.

I, too, thought that the Fein was too expensive and not needed, after all I built the dragonfly without it.

The concept of not having to knife trim layups in the chewing gum state really appealed to me, however, since my hanger is 40 minutes from my house. As time went on, the Fein became my most used tool (with the possible exception of me). Since I was using it in the hanger, at home and at my new office, I thought that I had lost it in transit. I almost had apoplexy. It is now safely back in my hanger eating up the watts.

Or get the 40 grit for your Fein tool. For those of you old enough to remember, "it makes housework almost nice.":p

The Fein tool with the 40 is like a magic wand for bonding onto existing hardened layups. Tremendous control and you can, with a little practice, just abrade the surface of the epoxy and not worry about the glass. It is also very quick. (but noisy)

I absolutely loathe spade connectors!!! Even with the expensive M/F spades, the proper size wire and the fancy crimp tool, the majority of the connectors can be pulled off of the conductor fairly easily. As a matter of fact, more times than not, they are pulled off when I'm trying to unplug the connectors (using the requisite multiple pair of needle nose pliers of course)

 

I'm now going through and replacing most of them with Molex plugs in order to improve the reliability of my electrical system connections. With the proper crimp tool, the Molex pins will not separate from the conductor ... you'll break the conductor before the pin will slide off!!! AND BONUS, you can easily disconnect everything without pliers and having to redo all of the connectors!!

 

Attached is a picture of what I'm going from (mess of 8 spade connectors) to what I'm going to (8-pin Molex connector) just for the EGT and CHT wires on each side of the engine. I'm using 2 and 3-pin plugs in a number of other places. Joy, joy, joy!!!

 

Maybe now I'll be happier with my Rocky Mountain Instruments micro monitor ... doubt it, but I'll try to smile

It might b e a good idea to squirt a little antioxidation goo in the mating pins before joining them to prevent any corrosion. (I believe that the Marine industry and also possibly the auto industry does that.)

Why don't you like your Micro Monitor? I found the one that I used in the dragonfly to be reliable and good. (if you don't mind everything digital)

SPG,

You also might want to take a look at all of your crimps. My concern is with the strain relief that you have, especially in the small wires. My fear is that vibration may separate those wires. The extra plastic on the crimped terminal is designed to crimp around the exiting wire giving some strain relief and rigidity. In many of the terminals, it looks like this is not the case, If your wire is too small for the plastic part of the terminal, you can use heat shrink tubing to achieve a good result (use the right size stuff). It's hard to tell in the photo, but if it were mine, I would check every crimped joint in the joint.

Well, I took John Slades advice and took another look at my Audi A80 hinges.

 

Turns out that canting or angling them about 5-10 degrees inward remove the binding I was seeing. However, I still see some movement of the hinges as they are opened. And I still feel varying amounts of stiffness as they are actuated. And I see some flexing of the rear portion of the hing attach plate where I cut off the third bolt attachment hole.

 

So, I decided to re-think the use of these particular hinges.

 

I tried my other set of VW hinges, but they are too long and I can't trim them to fit.

 

So, then I tried to mock up my own multi-link arrangement using straight rectangular links. This didn't work out too well since the spacers resulted in binding and a lot of play in the closed position.

 

So now I have a new Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is to go back to the junkyards and try to find hinges that are installed 90 degrees between the trunk and car. This is still my preferred approach if I can find some that operate this way and are strong enough.

 

Plan B is to work on the standard J hinges.

 

So, since I can't make it to the Junkyards till the weekend, I will work on my J hinges for now as backup.

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

Oh yeah, as to the J-Hinges, now I have another quandry, aluminum vs fiber/carbon material for them. I am leaning towards the aluminum.

RN,

One of the problems with the FHC using hinges from the longeron to the canopy is that as the canopy opens, since the forward part of the hinge is narrower than where it is attached to the canopy, the angle between the two fixed points changes and must be accommodated in the hinge mechanism.

The same is true with the gas springs but that is usually taken care of by the ball and socket arrangements on each end.

The C hinges solve this in that the two ends don't change angles as the canopy opens. This problem is not noticed with a trunk hinge located in the middle of the front of the canopy for the same reason.

If you go to the C hinges, make a fixture to keep the hinge pins parallel and in the same plane or you will get binding left against right.

If they do certify it it will be more then a continental 550 . so why would any one buy it. and even if it is certified what does that mean to the homebuilder with a cozy looking for behind the firewall design that he can trust to put in for the family. there is no doubt that a rotary engine will run. it is, will the support systems keep it running? electronic systems used to support the engine are the biggest challenge. there is not yet one system that is proven to be even 90% reliable. the engine has very few moving parts. the gear box very few parts, the mechanical fuel systems are very good. the electronics system have thousands of parts, not to mention all the little electronic and computer bits floating around in there and all it takes is one to be out of place and it will ruin your whole day.

Lynn,

Out of curiosity, are you including Tracy Crooks ignition/fuel systems in your sample of the above. What is your definition of being 90% relliable, how soes that compair with the same criteria used to assess the reliability of magnitos and mechanical FI and carbs. What data are you using to support the claim?

I am trying to decide. Your input will be most helpful.

Thanks

Thanks for asking, Randi is doing incrementally better. Fortunately in straining her back she did not hurt her ability to talk so if she comes she may be less mobile but just as vocal

(I am so damn lucky she does not use a computer)

...Chrissi

Randi-- It's good to know that you will soon be getting BACK in shape.

You can get a piece of dental dam from your dentist, (or teenagers). This is a thin piece of latex in a square approximately 6"X6" you can punch a hole in it, slip it over the rotating tube clamp it to same and glue it to the fuselage. Stops the wind, is flexible and gives very little resistance to deformation. (thus the reference to the availability by teenagers (does not transmit disease) )

Other than the physiognamy, and the handling differences, the main difference is that the Long is a cramped tandem seating 2 seater craft, and the Q is a cramped side by side 2 seater, or 1 with lots of room. With the Q, you, of of course, are looking through the prop, it is somewhat smaller, and if built with the option, breaks in 1/2 with little effort for trailering.

the Q has a blown canopy which means that tall pilots (body, not leg length will be somewhat close to the canopy as it comes up and over. The Long pilot sits in the middle of the blown canopy and if you don't move your head much there is room. Most Qs are tail dragger aircraft with the main wheels at the outboard aspect of the canard. The Long is nose dragger. The Q has fixed gear, the long retracts its nose gear only (usually). The Q has a shorter range, the Q operates on a smaller engine (o200)

The Q is easier to get in and out of since you are right at it's level and the plane is not "grazing"

If you are considering the Q and want a gentler handling aircraft similar to it, consider the dragonfly. If your significant other doesn't mind looking at your bald spot, and not through the windscreen, the Long is probably for you.

I guess you can honestly say " I like IKE"

it apparently did not have a-Nixon-- your hanger.

I hope that when you open the door, all will be well and not a well

Just a thought,

Have you considered using the already fabricated below wing baggage pods.

Seal them off, install filler caps, use a facet pump to transfer fuel into the mains. Simple, clean, isolatable requre no structural changes and and are aerodynamically and W&B tested. Almost as sexy as the much merchandised Madonna. Of course they are now hanging down to her waist.

My inclination is to replace that block of wood and it's supporting glass. It is in that block of wood that you bury a pin which locates the trailing edge of the canard.

The above would probably be simpler than trying to scarf an additional piece to it.

Without getting into the pros and cons of this way of providing food, and realizing that sharing a common meal builds community, and also realizing that I won't be there this year, I remember in my Dragonfly days, that we had a "chuckwagon" type affair arrive which sold burgers, dogs, sloppy joes, and friggen' ham sandwiches, as well as drinks, desserts etc. for those who didn't want to tote their own. I think that it worked out well for the wagoneers as well as the participants.

Just a suggestion with no attachment as to whether it is acted upon or not!

mine was warped from wicks or spruce, can[t remember which,

I epoxied it, glassed it and let it cure under weight.

It came out flat as a board:p

It was several months before I used it and it remained flat

Does anyone know if the AeroCanard main gear strut is identical to the Cozy IV strut?

 

TIA

Same animal (vegetable or mineral) may even be made by the same people.

Chris,

Whether the back seat is comfortable for your co-pilot really depends on her/his leg length.

Because of the rake of the front seatback, those with long legs, or long feet will find it uncomfortable to stretch their legs out, in the back seat, since the seatback forces one to flex their ankles sometimes more than comfortably. If you have a short legged GIB or BIB, make a little foot rest to keep the feet at a comfortable level of flex

I still vote for the stagger-ez concept, That'll give you the best of both worlds.

In my aircraft which has the same wing plan form as a Cozy the seats have been moved back 10" and the front seat is limited to 450 lbs. so moving it only 4" won't do much.

Need more information??????

The planform of the wings merely determines the CL. I am talking about the CG (which is independent of the CL) Of course to fly, there has to be the proper relationship between CL and CG, however CG is not a flying calculation (it is a flyable calculation)

1. why is your front seat limited to 450? (I assume it was based on your CG calcs to put the CG where it should be)

2. If your seat were in the per plans position what would your allowable front seat loading be? or better yet, what would your actual (or calculated CG have been (IE with everything else being equal, how much did the CG move back with your rearward movement of the seat.

If the proposed rear loading is higher than yours, with the same seat position, the mathematical front loading necessity would be greater than 450.

When talking about CG and CG changes with respect to variations from the norm, it would be so much more helpful to all of us if we would, instead of giving resultants ie allowable front seat loading etc. if we give the raw CG facts, ie the actual CG as measured (or calculated) with an indication of the arm changes due to each modification. ie front seat back at Station xxx, pax seat back at station yyy (we, from the plans know where the original station was)

The W&B of the empty aircraft (weight and CG-- in or out of the envelope) is really the only important thing here. If we start with the specs of Nat's plane, we can easily calculate the ramifications of moving the seats, putting a longer prop extension or a C/S prop, a lighter or heavier engine, Wet bar under the Canard or any other thing we want to do to the aircraft. The calculations will tell us how much we need to put in the front seat, or what the limit is etc.

In 1968 I was flying wood wing Moonys. Their (and the FAA's) idea of W&B was a stapled sheet showing sample loading. No calcs for W&B. We have come a long way since then, lets use the technology in our communications-----please

:::disclaimer:::: Lynn, this monologue was not aimed at you. I know that you know all of this stuff. There are however those on this forum who don't really understand the complexity of W&B and perhaps will make serious mistakes based on a possible misinterpretation of statements.

I don't like accidents or failures ::::end of disclaimer::::

You aren't 'getting' it. No matter how much you want a Cozy IV in your present condition the Cozy doesnt want you.

Theres more involved here than just accommodating your size. Check the archives on the forums...The approved canard design isnt conducive to your weight. Sorry to be blunt, but you don't just make it wider and everything 'works'. Widening adds weight. A electric noselift adds weight. A full panel with all the bells and whistles wasnt in the calculation originally for a light Cozy. And whatever you add to the opposite end of the teeter totter behind the FW, exacerbates the front seat 'problem', electric starter, added oil cooler, etc. Everything adds up. If you START out at 430 to 455....dam...you are WAYYYYY over what the front of the aircraft should weigh, CG wise. This aint an automobile. CG is king, and the balance of lift between the canard and main wing is paramount.

Some have flown at 425# but who's to know what was in or not in their planes. I am sure you dont want to run out of runway on takeoff on a hot density altitude day...and then blame it on the airplane when you hit the chain link fence.

It could ruin your whole day.

With regards to moving the seats around to permanently affect the CG? Do that and you enter a complete new world of testing issues, as you create an unproven design, which is why so many are interested in the PROVEN design of the Cozy. Of course its all in what someone is comfortable with. Which is what this is all about anyway.

The past universal advice has been go on a diet. Thats what I did, just so you know.

Now as to the gross weight, that is another issue.

Many planes fly very well, thank you significantly overgross (witness those with huge aux fuel tanks for ferrying If the CG is correct they will fly.

However there are certain costs for flying overgross,

1. structural airframe considerations (everything breaks if given enough force)

2. Landing gear structural considerations (the main gear isn't supposed to come up unless you designed it that way

3. aerodynamic considerations. ie. lackluster or no climb, slow cruise due to the necessity to fly at a greater angle of attack and less margin between cruise and stall for the same reasons

4. poor fuel economy.

Actually the concept of the stagger e-z makes sense here since it will give more shoulder and hip room, retain a semi side to side seating arrangement and it will move the CG rearward because of the passenger's weight being at a station farther aft.

Maybe 10 minutes with a thorough knowledge of W&B and a pencil, or computer will give a go or no go sign to continuing to think about the appropriateness of this aircraft.

Chris,

Before I would reapply Jeffco, I would sure want to find out what the bonding problem was, so that I didn't have the same result.

If you supply some epoxy-type chemical laboratory with some of the flakes, and possibly a small section (layup only) of one of the baffles from which a flake came, it would seem that an analysis would be of great help in deciding what to do. Velocity may be able to help you there.

I do have a question.

I know that you can bond epoxy to vinylester or is it vinylester to epoxy with no problem, but do the reverse and there is no bond. ( I can't remember which order is the only correct one.)

Vinylester has been used successfully for fuel tanks (as a matter of fact, most of the modern below ground fuel tanks at service? stations are of this material.) Is it possible that Velocity made their fuel tank area with the vinylester material to be more fuel resistant (or put a vinylester coating over it for the same reason) and that your putting the jeffco (epoxy) on top of that (assuming that you can't get a good bond with epoxy over cured v-ester) is one of the reasons for the flaky delam?

Just a thought from someone who can't remember which goes first the chicken or the epoxy.