Jump to content

gupri

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gupri

  • Birthday 02/09/1946

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
    Gunter Prischl
  • Location (Public)
    QLD, AUSTRALIA

Project/Build Information

  • Plane Type
    Other/Custom Canard
  • Plane (Other/Details)
    INFINITY 1

gupri's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Thanks for the great pictures to Jon and Alan (the rocket racer is great too). Gives me some idea of the goings-on half a world away! Gunter
  2. I hope, everyone else enjoys it as much as I do. Thanks Rick Pellicciotti !
  3. Beautiful days and feeling good go together hand in glove. Found, that even on a not so nice day, I can get that good feeling, watching canards doing aerobatics at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCikxrrPp8A Canard formation aerobatics. Even the music fits nicely.
  4. Dear Chrissi,thanks for that definite fuel consumption statement. Do you think, that the advantages in lighter engine weight and smaller frontal area outweigh the higher fuel consumption of the 13B Turbo on your aircraft in comparison to a flat 4 or 6 of the same power? Do you think it is possible to have extra luggage (or fuel) space in the strakes, a la Infinity 1 advertising? C of G calculations would of course have to be re-done before going ahead with such a mod. Have a good time ....Gunter
  5. Hi Chrissi, what got me onto this whole subject, was the website, which I found very interesting..... www.earthrounders.com/cgi/singles.php where a Swiss airline pilot flew a LongEZ with fuel pods around the world - in both directions in the same year. Very interesting story and also encouraging. This is why I was wondering, whether a Cozy MK IV could be equipped to achieve a "Round the World" flight with enough safety. The Subaru SVX engine seems to have proven itself in 24 hour races, so should be up to the task. I'm still wondering, whether Rotary engines (especially the Renesis) are using as much fuel as is quoted in some places. Have seen too many conflicting reports on 13B, 13B Turbo and 20B engines. Thanks for your reply and tips. Have a tremendously good 2008. Gunter
  6. I realise, that my contribution comes rather late for your question, but I remember seeing a photo of a canard aircraft (can't remember whether it was a Cozy) with external tanks on pylons. Seem to remember, that it was built by a Swiss guy, who flew that plane from Europe to the USA without any problems and setting records in the process. Just checked out the website and found, that he flew a Long EZ. If you go to www.earthrounders.com/cgi/singles.php then go to the year 2000 and click on H G Schmid, you will find his stories and pictures. Have a Happy and prosperous New Year.
  7. Hi Jerms, after checking out all kinds of engines, the RX8 Renesis (Rotary genesis) seemed to be the "bee's knees". That was until I found out about the fuel consumption, which could reduce your aircraft's range by up to 50% in comparison with some other engines. There are workshops here in Australia, which will do Renesis conversions for aircraft at a reasonable price as well. Have a Happy New Year and fun comparing other engines, their durability, fuel consumption and prices.
  8. Hi Podman, I like your kind of humour. The only reason I mentioned external fuel pods is that a possible circumnavigation would require a lot of extra fuel between Hawaii and California. Only on such a flight would the pods be mounted. Thanks for your quick reply and have a happy and prosperous 2008.
  9. Thanks for the tips, Edge 513. I shall check out the various sites, as soon as I can find them. My main reason for the more powerful engine is the improved climb performance, rather than exceeding Vne. I found, that plenty of power can get one out of tight spots in a hurry when necessary. Other than that, a more powerful engine can be run at life-prolonging engine-settings. Here in Australia most GA accidents happen due to underpowered aircraft getting caught in fast changing weather conditions. Thanks again - and may you have a happy and prosperous New Year.
  10. How successful would modifications like a Subaru SVX Turbo engine and larger fueltanks be on a Cozy MK IV? Would hardpoints holding external fueltanks be feasible? Does anyone know, what the increase in climb would be with an SVX Turbo of about 350hp and a Ross 1.85:1 PSRU? What sort of speed increase (Vcr) could be expected with that engine? Would a WarpDrive 3-blade constant speed prop be appropriate? Would an Infinity retractable main gear be more solid than the usual fixed gear? It is supposed to take hard landings of a 2200 lb aircraft with ease. It seems, that Brian Bishop, who was the 1998 - '99 "Thunderbirds" Leader and Commander, as well as many others, have convinced me, that the Cozy MK IV could be the aircraft for me. I have to say, that the side sticks were also a great influencing factor. Would be especially nice with the Infinity fighter type stick grips at only $175 each, fully wired. They come in right and left hand versions - sounds absolutely ideal to me. I would like to thank all people considering these questions for me. gupri
  11. Would you happen to know the physical measurements of a Mazda 13B Series 5 Turbo engine? Would a 2.5 : 1 PSRU be suitable for this engine? Any information would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
  12. Thank you all for your replies. My main reason for throwing this idea of flaps, LINKED TO CONTROL SURFACES ON THE CANARD, was the very much improved climb. Marc Z. apparently realised that, by not replying. The shorter field performance would only be an added bonus, but only useful in an emergency landing, which hopefully NEVER becomes necessary anyway.
  13. This is just a thought, which should work. I realise, that the Velocity has currently NO flaps. BUT - if the canards had control surfaces linked proportionately to flaps, this should increase climb, decrease stall speed and therefore shorten roll-out. This system is used (in a much more complicated way) on the Swedish SAAB JAS-39 Gripen fighter and allows exceptional climb, whilst the aircraft is at a horizontal flying position, which allows a better view at the same time. The whole system could be as simple as being worked with a single lever, working with push-pull rods. This should be a relatively easy modification. What are your thoughts on this?
  14. gupri

    270 mph Velocity?

    Thanks Brett, As the Vne was variously given as 200mph and 200 knots, I wanted to err on the side of safety (also didn't want to get my hopes up too much ). Actual Vne of 200 knots makes it even better and more efficient than would otherwise be the case. It looks like a Subaru SVX Turbo (available for under $10,000) could also give an initial climb of about 3,000 fpm - which would be fantastic, as cruise heigth could be reached much quicker. Thanks again for setting me straight. Gunter
  15. Hi all, Checked out the updates on the Velocity site recently, and found, that a Velocity flew at 135% Vne without any problems at all. As the stated Vne is given as 200 mph, this equates to 270 mph. Not too shabby!!! On the Velocity Builders Forum there is a picture of a Subaru SVX turbo installation, which could quite conceivably achieve the above speed, as the SVX Turbo is supposed to turn out 350 to 360hp! I wonder, whether anyone reading this, would know the Vmax and initial climb speed of a Velocity SE RG with the above engine? I would really appreciate some actual data (even in an XL). Thanks for participating.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information