fmanh2

Thanks for your input! I am allways keen on learning more about this airplane. Currently my brother also seams to have caught the bug. Being a carpenter he is eying the IBIS construction which seama to be an efficient and simple to build design for one with all of the tools readily available. Not to mention the simple engine alternatives (rebuilt vw). thanks again! regards JH

Ordinarily 'down' is defined as 'south' (in sweden that is, this may not be the case in the anglosaxon tradition?). given the fact that I am located at N60, well, pretty much all of the US is located 'down' from my perspective. Apart from northern alaska that is ;-). Given the fact that I spend considerably time even further north, this should cover even most of alaska (About N66) ;-). Which, by the way, leads to the curious question about how efficient the heating system is in this contraption? I can assure you that 30 degrees (centigrade) below zero, is not to be taken lightly. Even more normal 15-20 degrees below can easily become lethal... Allthough I am not planning on doing much winter flying it could be worthwhile to investigate the provisions for such conditions. Furthermore: According to the national EAA chapter we have 25 flying rutan constructions in sweden in total. Most of them located in the Stockholm area. http://www.hobby.se/EAA/EAA-flygplan/SEXRS.jpg shows the one I have seen around in the local club. I think ;-). I will, I think, aproach him with some of myquestions ;-) I thanks you all for you great help, you have really given me quite a bit of input and ideas. regards JH

The 'club' as was carelessly saying (I do not reall know If i am using the correct term here), is the place where I currently rent my aircrafts ad takes my lessons. Its located in Stockholm, sweden, botkyrka-barkaby flygklubb. I have visually identified and aircraft that I believe is an EZE, however, I will try to locate the owner and harass him with some questions... regards JH

Thanks! Mazda RX7? It's the only commercial rotary (in the sense of Wankel) I know of... Other than the gnome engines from first world war ;-). Hmm, I am not 100% sure I understood this? If it's forgiving for wight additions in the rear area, wouldn't the ballast go there? If I have understood it correctly (and note the 'If'), the whole point with the canard design is to let the *front* stall first (unlike an ordinary configuration where the tail actually stall the 'wrong' way and let the main wing fall through. When the canard stalls, it strives to lower the nose and thereby convert height to speed and regain a proper attitude. A to high weight in the front should then make the canard stall at a higher speed... But then maybe I have misunderstood the concept, I still have quite a few things to learn about this configuration, and I appreciate every oportunity to do so... I think I can locate an *EZE with some ease ;-). There is one within the club... regards JH

Yes it is somewhat pricey, I've noticed. The actual building of the aircraft is by it self the cheap part. The pricey part is the avionics and the engine. Being a aspiring (not yet though) IFR pilot i really would like to have the IFR equipment onboard. However, I fully agree with you on the fact that the cozy (so far at least) seems to provide most bang for the bucks. Being located in Sweden fuel costs will though be an important part of my calculations and even rather high purchase price could be offset by the lower consumption and fuel price induced by a kerosene/diesel burning engine. However, as you said, this is nothing I will decide in the first round. Further more, as you stated, I have not even yet reached the conclusion that I should build an airplane, one step at a time. This is just some cautious preliminary question in an investigation which will take about a year to complete. On my agenda is also to find a pilot who has built this type of aircraft so I can talk to him/her about problems/flight characteristics and other things of interest. This is not a decision I take lightly. What engine is he planning on using? I know about at least three diesel engines (among them the http://www.deltahawkengines.com/, http://www.thielert.com/en/aviation/engines.htm, http://www.wilksch.com/, and the zoche experiment), and I have visited dieselair.com and started to learn even more. Personally I am quite convinced that diesel engine is the way to go for several reasons, specially a two stroke variant. But as allways, it boils down to price in the end... Point taken! And this is one of several steps... I am 6.3 ft tall, 90 kg, and well, relatively at least, fit (most of it is muscles...). I guess I have to find a small co pilot :-) My main problem is really that I am somewhat disproportionate, meaning, my legs are fairly long. I guess I have to test and sit in one of these constructions before I make up my mind ;-). I do not intend to, but it is a feature when required ;-) What is, by the way, the Vne on this bird? I saw a reference to a jet powered machine elsewhere on this site, and I was kind of intrigued when the author said that 200 knots was the slowest he could achieve in level flight with without idling the engine... That is fairly fast... And I can imagine that the stress on the construction was considerable... Hm. I can sort of imagine that given the flight characteristics of this machine... :-). How does this relate to the aboe given advice of moving back the front set an inch or so? Wouldn't this shift the Cg backwards and thus decrease the usefull load in the rear seats? I am aware of this, and yes, economy is one of the more important parts here, I am operating on a relatively thin budget and whish to have a maximum of joy for the money. I have looked at the lancair and the glasair, and while being excellent airplanes, they are not really in the same league when it comes to the economy side (allthough, I dare say, they provide very good value for the money spent though). I really apreciate all of your help! regards JH

Hi everybody! I have recently begun the journey to learn more about how to build my own airplane. The canard type has struck me as being a quite good and efficient design on the whole. However, being the newbee I am, there is a lot to learn before undertaking this kind of project, and therefore I am forced to, ahem ask maybe dumb questions. I am currently investigating airplanes that can be built from plans. The aircraft should carry upto 4 (2*90+2*75+25, all weights in kilograms, sorry, I am afterall european!) passengers with baggage, along with ample fuel levels for up 2.5 hours of flying. The only aircraft comming close seams to be the cozy mark IV. HOwever, even that design seams to be right there on the edge with those requirements. I was thinking of using the deltahawk 200 hp diesel engine (I kind of like the concept with a two stroke diesel!). My questions are: 1) Is there any experience of the deltahawk diesel engine in a cozy or similar design (besides the velocity)? 2) I am 1.90 meters (should be roughly, hahum, 5 ft 8" (?)), is the cozy cabin large enough when you are a bit longer than normal? I seem to recall to have seen that this is not an uncommon problem? 3) With a quick calculation it seems to be hard to meet the requiements above in regards of weight with the standar cozy (or am I simply missing out on something)? Is there any possibility to achieve a somewhat higher lift? I am aware of the balance of lift between the canard and the main wing. Or is there any alternatives aircrafts to look at? I hope I haven't bothered you with my, perhaps stupid questions! regards JH