gupri

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

I hope, everyone else enjoys it as much as I do.

Thanks Rick Pellicciotti !

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.

Dear Gunter,

The new renesis engine is probably 7-10% higher fuel burn when properly leaned (over a 4 cyl Lycoming).

...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

You might want to talk to Robert and Valerie Harris of EZ Jets. They manage to put a a lot of fuel in a canard by plumping up the strakes, fuel pods and if needed a rear seat tank.

...Chrissi

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

There are some 320 odd websites dealing with the KLS Composites SQ-2000 and I must have picked the news up on one of them - can't remember which one though. From memory there was a wider fuselage and the Infinity 1 main gear for it available.

Hi all,

there appears to be a new, improved design of the SQ-2000.

Does anyone know, what the Vne is for this model - and whether a Subaru SVX Turbo (~350hp) would be suitable as an engine for it?

gupri

Hi Hans,

sorry, I could not tell you whether prototype 1 flew or not. All I could find out so far, is that Infinity 1 was designed by an ex Navy Commander. It looks like a modified and strengthened LongEzy to me. It was the performance parameters that got me going. As these are apparently NASA confirmed, they should be right - but as John Matcho says, kits may be a while in coming yet.

Try to contact JD Newman off the official website. I've emailed him a couple of times so far - but no replies as yet.

Gunter

I am very interested in the INFINITY 1, a tandem 2-seater, with a Vne of 400kts. My engine of choice would be the Subaru SVX 3.3 L turbo'd and intercooled of ~350hp. With a kit price of under $ 33,000 and a range of 1600 miles it seems like the ideal (and economical) personal fighter.

Has anyone else checked out this aircraft on www.infinityaerospace.com ?

gupri

I'd be very happy with an INFINITY 1, with Subaru SVX 3.3 L turbo and intercooler at about 350 hp. This tandem 2-seater aircraft's Vne of 400kts (460 mph or 740 km/h) surely makes it something out of the ordinary - and economical at the same time.

With a kit price of less than $33,000 and a range in excess of 1600 miles, it's the closest we'll come to a personal fighter aircraft at a reasonable price.

gupri

Hi Jerry,

thanks for that link about Subaru modifications - I think it's excellent.

gupri

So in an effort to research engines, I couldn't fail to notice the Subaru conversions. Eggenfellner and Crossflow offer engines that they have 'modified', but both are cryptic in describing what they've done, besides the PSRU's. Does anyone out there know what is required? I am having trouble discerning what they do to span the difference between their prices (~$22-28,000 US) and the ~$850 that a JDM Subaru engine costs on ebay.

 

I know the ECU and the related auto-specific stuff (O2 sensors) have to be worked around, but what modifications to a Subaru block or heads is necessary?

 

As an aside, how much does a four cylinder 2.0 - 2.5 L weigh? The other posts I saw here focused on a bigger cowl on a Velocity. I've seen many Subaru engines, and know that they are certainly no bigger than a Lycoming.

 

I've seen Al Wick's page, as well as Phil Johnson's. Is anyone else building or flying with a Subaru engine?

 

-- Len

Whilst I can't tell you the weight of a 2.0 -2.5 L Subaru, the weight of the 3.3L Subaru SVX with turbo and intercooler (~350 hp) is about 400 lbs.

gupri