dpaton

seeing that this is not for the SCCA or FIA I would check with an aircraft seat belt manufacture like Hooker Harness. they have done a few more aircraft installs then the SCCA has.

Please note that nowhere did I state that there should be any applicability of the SCCA or FIA regulations to aircraft design. I was only noting the differences of the seatbelt specs, for two applications that share similarities.

That's interesting, because SCCA and FIA (if I remember correctly) require that the shoulder belt run from +10 or 15 to -35 degrees or so, from the shoulder top to the fastening or brace bar point.

Soudns pretty spiffy. If you want, I can bring along some toys from work to play with next time too. Advanced headset kinda things.

No worries Rick...I haven't done anything plane related in months, aside from dream. Every penny has gone to the new down payment, and every moment to fixing up the old place to sell. Hopefully the new house will be more plane friendly, as I've got a set of Cozy plans on my list for the holidays this year.

As for flying...I'm always up for a ride. That reminds me, did you ever get the back seat intercom issue figured out?

Thanks Edge. We took a beating, but we're still getting some money out of the house at closing. Not as much as we'd hoped, or as we would in a normal market, but it's enough for now.

After a year of trying, my wife and I finally sold our house!

Now it's time to find a new place to call home...and close...in the next 3 weeks! :yikes:

Steve-

Not that I'd recommend an auto seat for a plane, but if you do go that route, I'd specifically look for something that's FIA homogulated. A lot of the so-called 'racing' seats aren't even close to what's required by standard safety bodies like FIA, which have rigorous limits in place for just about every aspect of the system.

its HP you need. not torque

First I admit, my comment was not inclusive of the nature of engine power. I got excited by the graph. However...

Tq is what pushes the prop around. HP just adds time to that factor. ~550lb-ft for 1s is 1hp. Tq = work (force/distance). work * time = hp. I'm looking at this with my engineer hat on through my physics glasses.

Tq and Hp are interdependent based on RPM and 5250 (the time factor I gave above). In an airplane, more tq means a bigger bite of the air is possible at a given RPM. If the tq is highly ramped like it is in small piston engines, you don't have a very useful range where the motor to do a lot of work.

HP can't be analyzed without including Tq and RPM. The same holds true to the others. Taken with the 280ish BHP, that 220lb-ft of Tq makes the engine look extra exciting. Versatility is a good thing, and a wide, flat, fat tq curve gives more versatility than a peaked one.

285 HP on the Dyno.... It is a beautiful build

I don't give a cr*p about that....look at the torque line! DEAD FLAT!

I took a puddle jumper from Denver to Durango a number of years back, one windy night. The turbulance was so bad that we turned around 3 times, only to turn back to the original heading, because the bumps were worse behind us. Climb, descend, nothing helped. The cabin crew never got out of the harnesses, and with my seat belt pulled as tight as I could make it (seat springs compressed fully), I still ended up bouncing high enough to smack my head on the console above (I'm 6'4). On the way out, the pilot termed the ride 'severe +1'.

I've never been in a commercial engine out situation. I don't think I want to be either.

6th order filters...very nice. I assume it's impedance-corrected too?

Files are rehosted at the links below.

Mods: Please delete links in above post!

A7130

A50F13

One thing...the document is for transonic small NACA inlets. If anyone on this board is planning on putting their plane into a situation where there will be air above 0.7 mach (~460kts) at an inlet...well....

I think these might be more applicable to the thread:

Link deleted,

see post below...

Please be nice and mirror them, they're served from my DSL line at home, so be patient. For some reason, the forum uploader kicked out the smaller of the two, which is under the size limit.

Besiea = Bezier for us engineering types.

Jim trades people skills for technical acumen. He occupies a very narrow niche in the industry, not served by anyone else. How many other companies let homebuilders build their own aircraft electronics? Radios, NAV/COMs, marker beacon receivers and audio panels and antennae are indeed useful, and he's forgotten more about the systems than most of us will ever know. That said, I've met him enough times to think he's real good people, and deserves patience in business.

He's probably sick and tired of people asking for handouts, like Drew mentioned. He used to write awesome articles about the things he sells. The website still has schematics (and sometimes PCB layouts) for the previous version of a lot of the things they sell/sold, including the old COM and NAV/COM radio kits. I think a lot of folks expect something for nothing now, and he's still trying to make some scratch from the business.

That said, in my nearly 20 years(!) of on and off dealings with him and RST, I've never been let down. Be patient, it's mostly him and a helper in his garage if I understand correctly.

I was thinking this was another incident involving excessive heat buildup do to braking.

(I was not there.)

I remember someone at RR this last year dropping it in nice and hard, and deforming their gear, I think.

I thought that was a cracked nose gear strut?

Were you wearing big clunky shoes?

Actually, I was wearing my beloved Piloti G16s. I own 2pr of the Nomex version (Ingels and Corsa) but don't take them out for anything but track days.

That said, I do wear 13s, so yes, big feet, but they keep my 6'4 frame balanced nicely

Also I have had 6'1 185lb passenger with no problem.

I'm 6'4 Jack

The pane was definitely tight for my legs, but tucking them behind the rudder pedals worked just fine for a short run. For longer flights, I think I'd need a thinner seat cushion and more clear space for my toes.

-dave

I feel in this case they both equally carry the burden of failure; Honda has a lot to learn about aircraft engine, Continental has a lot to learn.

I don't pretend otherwise, but if the automotive technology can be adapted, and the expected benefits (efficiency, emissions, reliability, power density) garnered, I think it'll be a thing of beauty.

Morphheus.....the p2p program, Lawrence Fishburne from the Matrix, or the Greek god of dreams?

I like all 3 by the way.

Tony-

Wow man, the last few updates look awesome. Will you be naming your Berkut Lazarus, or perhaps the Phoenix?

I'm at work currently:sad: and will have to post them later tonight.

Today? Bummer. Thankfully I'm off. Good thing too...the wife and I didn't come home until roughly dawn. Freakin snowstorms....

suspect they want to do it like all of their brilliant car and MC engines and the Conti engineers are still yearning for another John Deere revival model.

Never has anyone so succinctly summarized to me the difference between modern automotive IC engines and their literally vintage AC counterparts.

Hopefully someday we'll see things like a Honda AC engine and a revival of the promise (not the strange implementation) of something like the Porsche effort of the mid 80s.

Long dead is my best guess. I have a feeling that the HondaJet is the fruition of the aviation efforts of Soirchiro's company. That's completely unsubstantiated however, so feel free to prove me completely wrong. I'd love to have an H badge on my (future) Cozy, along with all the land vehicles my family owns.

Tony,

It's official..... you have been highjacked!

 

Take it easy Tony, squawk 7500 and we'll get the thread back on track nice and easy, so noone gets hurt :D