Bearair

Plans #528 is ours along with a laundry list of parts and a fuselage through Chapter 7. It's all in our hangar for now and will be moved to the shop as parts are needed. I'm reading through the plans over the next couple weeks while I digest just how much I've bitten off. There's a lot of parts to look through and a lot of reading to do. I'll consider myself a builder when I'm actually building:D Right now I've got a really interesting conversation piece in the hangar... Got the unpacking done this afternoon. Semi-organized everything and went through all the parts bins to make sure all the steel stuff had a touch of Corrosion-X on it. Don't want anything rusting while I'm building. From the intitial look through, I'd say that I won't need a lot more stuff just to build the fuselage. I don't have a centering caster for the nose wheel, but have all the other gear parts. Looks like I need some glass, some micro, some tools and a few other little things to get going. Probably put together an order for next month. I'm planning on studying everything closely in the meantime.

It's 5:30 in the morning, we just got back to the house at 5, and I'm beat. We drove to Marysville WA Friday night and stopped and spent the night with a friend. Got a few hours sleep, and then got back on the road to Blaine WA. We were driving our Ford Ranger pulling a 5x9 interior dimension open trailer. Got up there to load everything, and realized that it was a LOT of stuff. Some of the boxes had been in a storage unit when we looked at the project before, so I didn't know how big they'd be. Long story short, we got it all to fit. The previous owner was impressed that we got it all in and thoroughly secured (hey, 6 years of electronics hauling for NorthAmerican Van Lines can't hurt). Had it all tarped and tied off and headed for home. Got back here about 3:30 in pouring rain and opted to just unload at the hangar right then. Got everything unloaded, and things got a tiny bit rained on when we hauled into the hangar. Everything was dry when we un-tarped it though! So, the project has a new home. I'll take some pictures eventually, but right now I'm beat.

There is a gauge for the rivets to measure proper "squish" if you will. You put it over the crushed end, and if the hole (for the size of rivet you're using) goes down over the crushed end, you haven't squeezed it enough. You want the rivet end to be slightly too large for the hole.

I, personally, like the idea of an aviation rotary. The problem up to this point is that I don't feel that Mazda rotaries make great aviation engines. I really hope that all you folks that like the idea of a Renesis in your plane, also like the idea of taking them apart. The Renesis has been a warranty NIGHTMARE for Mazda. I know techs that absolutely hate the thing. Oil consumption is high, power isn't great until high rpm, They've been eating rotor seals at an alarming rate and they aren't cheap when you factor in replacement. I've spoken with several Mazda techs that feel they have replaced approx. 1/2 of the engines in the cars sold locally during the warranty period. Not one of Mazda's finer moments. I'd love to see a dedicated rotary aircraft engine as a choice for when I get our airframe done. Especially if it actually performs up to the standards promised. It's going to have to be thoroughly tested though.

That's too bad. I've always liked the Long EZ and have wanted one for a while. The other half finally decided it for me though and we're picking up a Cozy IV project this weekend. I'm just up by Boise and it wouldn't even have been a long trip. Hope you get it sold!

We're heading up to Western WA to pick-up a Cozy IV project this weekend, and it was built (to date) using MGS 335. What I need to know is, what's the epoxy that's LEAST likely to cause a reaction. Since the fuselage is only done through chapter 7, would now be a good time to think of using a different epoxy? The turtleback, wheel pants, cowling, gear bow, sump blisters and several other Featherlite parts are already made and I'm not sure which epoxy they use. It's fairly critical that I do as much as I can not to develop a reaction to the plane. I'd probably muscle through it, but it would definitely slow me down.

Hey guys, this is from Precision's website. November 1, 2007 Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain product liability insurance for the product line. Precision Airmotive LLC and its 43 employees currently manufacture and support the float carburetors used in nearly all carbureted general aviation aircraft flying today. Precision has been the manufacturers of these carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved carburetors were designed as early as the 1930s and continue to fly over a million flight hours a year. After decades of service, the reliability of these carburetors speaks for itself. Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums rise dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the total sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we have absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry as a whole would be able to help address this issue faced by Precision Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation companies. Our efforts have been unsuccessful. This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the design approval by the Federal Aviation Administration, Precision Airmotive has been unable to obtain product liability insurance for the carburetor product line. While we firmly believe that the product is safe, as does the FAA, and well-supported by dedicated people both at Precision and at our independent product support centers, unfortunately the litigation costs for defending the carburetor in court are unsustainable for a small business such as Precision. Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has been left with no choice but to cease production and support of its float carburetor line. We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation and to provide future support for this product line. There is a substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our distributors, which should be sufficient to support the industry for a short time. Basically, they've been making and supporting most of the carbs we use and are stopping. One of the members on Beech Aero Club did a bunch of calling around yesterday, and was able to find out that Kelly Aerospace will still be producing parts for existing carbs, but no new carbs. What's out there at distributors at this point, is what there will be. Rebuilding is still possible obviously, but this doesn't bode well for the industry. It's just wrong when litigation can define an industry.

Okay, even without finding a ride, we're still going to get started. Just made a deal to purchase a partially completed project. Going to haul it down here next weekend, put it in the hangar, and then finish setting up the shop. Hope to be makin' parts and pieces by the end of the winter. The fuselage is finished to chapter 6, and has several other things completed in it. Has electric nose retract, a ton of Featherlite parts, gear bow and front gear leg, leading edges, etc. All the hardware is done and looks really nice. Went and saw all of it a couple weeks ago and finally ended up making a deal. Should give us a good jump start towards completing a Cozy! So, in a couple weeks we'll go from lookers, to plans and parts owners and after the shop is set up we'll be builders! Looks like the only thing I'll need to get going will be some more hardener (MGS) and some BID and UNI. Just about everything else is there. Oh, and I'll need a Fein and a couple little things like a cloth cutter. Starting to get really excited here...

That 135KG is quoted for a dry engine. That doesn't include all the accessories, intercooler, radiator, oil cooler, coolant, etc.

If that's the case, then a couple articles that I read recently were mis-speaking. They said FAA certification for the o-320 replacement in Cessnas was "pending" (a few months ago) and would be finished by OSH. Must not have happened. Since I'm figuring on 5-6 years before I'm ready for an engine, then SOMEONE should have one ready to ship!

You still have the problem of having to have a re-drive. I've looked for Porsche stuff on the web, and have had a hard time finding anything other than the Mooney/Porsche collaboration from back in the late 80's. Could have been a nice setup, but it was never fully sorted out after it was being flown. Porsche pulled out of the deal as soon as they could as the engines weren't even coming close to TBO, and the Planes were sold with a "gauranteed TBO" number. Porsche had to eat the rebuilds even though a good part of the problem was with the Mooney cowling and cooling layout. Left a bad taste in Mooney owners mouths. It could have been a lot faster if the cooling system had been properly sorted. The Mooney owners that bought the planes and Porsche got left with the repair bills. There are several mentions of the 4 cylinder Porsche engines being used on light aircraft. Nothing that would fit the 160-200HP range though. Seems like a possible option given that the Porsche engines could be set up to run at higher outputs for extended lengths of time, but there are lower cost options out there versus a 911 motor and re-drive. I'm still looking though. I used to own a 914 that was HEAVILY modified. Had a completely different body kit on it, 911 Carrera transaxle that had been setup for mid-engine and up to 650HP, and a 400HP 355 CI Chevy engine in it. 944 Turbo brakes at all four corners, Troutman dual racing master cylinder, Weltmeister, Bilstein, you get the picture. 0-60 in about 3.8 and topped out around 175. Pulled over a GEE lateral. Unreal to drive!

Think the WAM100 is done and now for sale (LSA engine). It's an alternative to the O-200 and Rotax engines in the 100HP category. Seems like the WAM120 was shown at OshKosh this year. I'm looking at a project next weekend and am seriously considering diesel power for it. Been watching to see which companies actually deliver anything. Right now I'm thinking that a Deltahawk 200 is the way I'd be going. Direct replacement for an O-360 and very nice fuel consumption numbers. They are supposed to be done with certification on the 180HP model shortly, and the 200HP right after as they are basically the same engine. The 160HP model is already certified for replacement of O-320's in some certified models, with more being added. They are trying to price the their engines to compete with the equivelant gas models. I seriously think that diesel will be the way to go within 5 years. 100LL is on the way out. Deltahawk is nice in that they don't use a reduction drive. There are no cylinderhead gaskets to blow. They've gone through the process of FAA certification which means that durability will be good. They are quieter than their gas engine counterparts. TBO is the same as the engines they are meant to replace, but rebuild cost is WAY less. Cost of fuel savings over TBO is $25K or so. That's a lot of panel upgrades. Oh, and single power lever control. No icing, no mixture, no prop control. Just set the power level, and fly the plane.

I'm currently seeking a ride in a Cozy IV if anyone is game. My wife and I currently own a Beech Musketeer and are interested in building a Cozy. Already been out to Big Steve's place to see how this stuff gets built! Now it's on to finding out how they fly! If anyone can help out, drop me a line via PM or email at Ursam128@aol.com. We are willing to fly around a bit as long as the weather is decent. Thanks ahead of time!

I think I can offer some perspective on the original question. I've owned a Beech Musketeer for coming up on two years now, and have been involved in a forum specific to the "Aero Club" planes as they're known in the Beech community. We originally wanted to build an RV9A and ordered and built most of the tail kit. As I got closer to my license, we realized we wanted to FLY instead of build and try to rent, as the rental fleet here is slim. In over two years of being a forum member there, there have been not one, but SEVERAL issues with members having major corrosion issues on their birds. These are not planes that are prone to it, it just happened to specific airframes. Keep in mind that the fleet ranges in age from 44 to 24 years of age. We've had a few members that had to scrap their airframes after finding corrosion that was just too expensive to fix. The reason I'm telling you this is because metal corrodes. It's not a question of if it will try to corrode, but when it will try to corrode. There are all sorts of precations to take to KEEP it from corroding. These include the cladding on the metal, alodining, painting, zinc chromate prep, etc. The bottom line is, you have to initially prepare metal and then KEEP ON TOP OF IT through continued maintenance. Re-paint, re-prep, treat with corrosion inhibiting sprays, etc. Hangaring a metal plane is one of the best things you can do for it. The members that have had corrosion problems have things in common. The one that stands out the most is that they or the previous owner tied the planes down. Replacing metal airframe parts on a certified aircraft can get REAL expensive. Replacing metal components on an experimental is a LOT less expensive if you can do it yourself. Replacing components or portions of a composite airframe is basically time and the cost of materials. On a certified aircraft you can quickly exceed the value of the plane. Not as much of a problem with experimental metal planes unless the manufacturer is no longer around and you can't produce the part yourself. Really not much of an issue with a composite as you just MAKE the part or repair it. I've studied this stuff at length for several years and we've finally decided to build a Cozy. Just trying to find the right project currently. Going to go take a look at one in October and we'll go from there! Went and helped out on another member's project last weekend, and had a great time. I still need a ride though, so if anyone within a 500 mile radius of Boise ID wants to offer, We'd love to fly over when the weather is good for a ride! Hey, it's another excuse to go flying and we're always looking for those...

The lift that it generates maintains directional control, and that's about it. The rest of the aircraft is held aloft with thrust. A LOT of thrust. Think, 54,000 lbs. (or more) in afterburner.

The canard on those fighters is there to maintain a lifting surface, and thus control, no matter what angle of attack the wing is at. If you ever watch video of the Flankers doing airshow routines, you'll notice that the plane can have an angle of attack of well over 90 degrees and the canard will be deflected downwards and is pointed in the general direction of flight. This maintains lift and directional control even when the plane is travelling in a direction and pointed OVER 180 degrees from that direction. Along with thrust vectoring, the plane can literally flip around on the pitch axis, change it's vector on the roll axis, and be flying backwards and be controllable. The canards and the thrust vectoring exhaust are what keeps it pointed in a direction until the thrust can push the wing fast enough to develop lift. at low gross weights the plane can just about hover due to excess thrust. Makes for a VERY interesting airshow routine. Keep in mind that the main wing is stalled once it's critical AOA is reached and stays that way all through the low speed maneuvering. So basically the canard develops lift nearly all the time which allows putting the nose wherever the pilot wants it. Think about pitching the plane around in the pitch and roll axes to keep a cannon pointed at a target without worrying about stall speeds. After the shot is made and the inertia bleeds out during the maneuver, you use thrust to regain energy and engage another target or extend and disengage. It puts the pilot in a low energy state until speed can be built up again which makes the aircraft vulnerable, but if it's a dogfight with a single opponent, the ability to do things that were unheard of 20 years ago could come in handy. Do a search on youtube for Flanker or Su-30.

True, but those are not true canard aircraft. The SU-30 is a conventional fighter with canards added to increase the turning ability of the fighter. They still have a conventional wing/tail arrangement with primary pitch control being provided by the elevators. The canards were simply added as an update to the SU-27 Flanker. Not all the SU-30's have the canards. Canards as an additional flight control surface have been added to many modern fighters and those are actually considered triplanes. The canard maintains stability and controlled flight of the main airfoil at high angles of attack. Not the same as being the primary flight control surface. In the case of the Eurofighter, the main control for pitch comes from the flaperons at the rear of the main airfoil. It's simply a Delta wing fighter. The delta wing dates back a long time and is essentially a flying wing. The addition of canards near the wing leading edges is to have the same effect that the small canards have on the conventional layout fighters. It increases control at higher angles of attack. The Rutan designs don't have flaperons, only ailerons. The horizontal stabilizer is in front of the main body of lift and so is the elevator on the back of the stabilizer. The Eurofighter and the SU-30 have their elevators at the rear of the plane. Also, they are longitudinally unstable by design. If they didn't have a computer controlling the flight systems, they'd tear themselves apart. Most of the GA fleet doesn't have that luxury. We all have a pilot that has to maintain control which is why we fly inherently stable aircraft. We can't all be fighter pilots... (damnit)!