Hans S

I have been playing around with an idea. The thought was to use the air pressure built in front of the windshield and tunnnel it to the engine. This would essentually remove the drag created by the normal scoop method. I realize that makes a long way for the air to have travel in an enclosed tube to get to the engine. And it would also create a more cramped area by your feet. Any thoughts?

The F220 is rated for engines up to 260hp. According to the site. http://www.aeromatic.com/news/index.php?category=5

Does anyone have any dealings with this type of prop? http://www.aeromatic.com/home.php Sounds like half the weight of a CS prop and most (not all) of the benefits.

TMANN, Thanks

Is that wet weight with all the access.?

Out of curiosity, what is the weight difference?

By the way, I happened to be searching for Mazda rotary engine stuff for the possible engine, as others have used it, and came across this site. http://rotaryeng.net/ edit: That's where I found the compound turbo stuff at first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine http://www.rotaryeng.net/Turbo-compound2-3D.jpg Has anyone looked into this? It would help get any extra power out of the engine without adding the need for a intercooler and beefed up engine because of boosting like a normal turbo. Added weight,from the turbine, would still be there, but if you used a PSRU anyway, it could be incorporated into it. Just a thought as I am no where near the engine stage.

There is a soft foam strip you can get for truck toppers also. I comes in different thicknesses. Adhevive backed on one side, not on the other.

I would like to apologize to everyone for my behavior. There were extenuating circumstances, but I don’t want to make excuses. The topic was only a curiosity to me and I turned it into a Big Deal, then I basically through a tantrum, scooped up my toys and went home. I truly am sorry to all those I offended and to those that ended up reading the posts. Again, I apologize.

Edge and Chrissi and whoever else, This is my point of discontent, and other's that have emailed me. To say just to build and then modify if needed, what if I get the fuse completed then decide I want it wider? I end up basicly wasting that whole build time as I now have to basicly start from scratch. People have already widened them up tp 12", though I don't know if the King Kozy is actually flying yet, but 6" wider are. They have been down the road so they know better what to do. To just build to plans then go back and redo stuff that could have been built in originally is a waste of time and resources. I'm told by others that there are lots of engineers here and that they think these planes should be modified after built, or the second build. Is it common to measure once and cut twice or the other way around. Even something fairly easy. Forward hinge canopy. I would you build it for side opening then modify it afterwards? It's been done and is easy enough to incorporate during the initial build. Why go back and take the old hinge out and redo the canopy for the added stresses in different areas. I personally ask questions here to find out if someone else has done it and how it worked. As far as this thread about the FBW, it was a curiosity, there are a few sites addressing FBW for small planes, I was just wondering if someone here knew anything about it. I have no desire to use FBW, though it keeps being stated I do. Frivolous or not, I can see for someone else it could be advantagous to have this type of thing. Anyway, I see no need for me to post anything here unless it directly pertains to the plans. Yeah yeah, I hear the clapping .

Since it was mainly my curiosity about others innovations, I won't sleep over it either way. Yes, people have emailed me off line, basicly in a nut shell, they have pointed me to look for "true" experimental sites. As stated by an email I received (I left the name off); "Canard Zone for the most part is very close minded. Most think that following a much used/followed plan and learning to do some fiberglass work puts them above others and puts them in the "experimental niche". Most do not want to learn anything about their plane other than it flies. Modifications, of any kind, are almost always attacked, with little thought of the potential benefit of new technology. Most of the innovators left this site a long time ago because of this. When they show up at Osh or RR it becomes a "wow", then people want to know how it was done so they can implement it also, this is after berating it to death when originally asked about on this forum. Quite honestly, there are way to many Devil's Advocates here. Good luck."

No controls, just think it. http://videos.howstuffworks.com/reuters/3367-brain-wave-control-video.htm

Probably, if you lost your electrical or popped a breaker/fuse, it could be a tad bit stressful. Goes back to the redundancy issue. When is it enough. Of course, the current system works too and has for quite a while.

Disclamer: I have no intention to do a FBW setup. Some advantages/or not of a FBW as I see it. No particular order. 1. Stability Augmentation 2. Fly with a Game Pad controller. Like Nintendo. 3. Autopilot 4. Different capabilities for different flyers. slow controls compared to, "snap" it's there 5. Switch for which side is flying. Pilot/Co-pilot cut-out. 6. No need for hard mounted joysticks/armrests. More room. Fold away armrests, thinner. 7. Unplug and put away. 8. How's someone gonna steal it with no controls? Pad/joystick double as key. 9. Long enough cord or jack in the back for back seat flying. 10. Something different. 11. No linkage in plane to be in the way, snag, or become wiggly. 12. Makes wing removal quicker, just disconnect a plug. Ease of cramming more planes into a single hangar. 13. Automatic take-over if someone tries to do something beyond the planes capability. 14. Future big brother: implement to main control so tower takes over and keeps you in pattern. 15. Reads bios, if you are out-cold (sleep, heart attack, too high no O2) plane takes over and can be landed remotely. 16. Actuation could be electro-Hydraulic or all electric stepper motors. 17. Weight and redundancy? It was pointed out we don't fly large planes, how heavy would the primary and secondary system actually need to be? What does the hydraulic speed brake actuator weigh? Could be controlled using a laptop/tablet which has all the other engine and flying goodies in it. 18. System self-diagnoses. If one actuator goes bad, or both primary and back-up go bad on a surface, system automatically tries to compensate using other surfaces for balance. 19. The software is pretty much there with the simulator software already available. Again, I have never worked on a FBW. This was a curiosity more than anything else.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be bristly (sp). Didn't sound that way when I wrote it, but re-reading it does sound that way. I don't think there is anything wrong with the stock set-up, as you said, it has worked for years, I just want to try something different, but I need to do a bench test first. Someone emailed me and told me all the control hardware up to the point where it attaches to the control surface weighs roughly twenty five pounds. tubes, bearings, cables, pulleys, etc. There's lots of tinkerers, Long-ez strakes on a Cozy, forward hing canopy, air conditioning, retractable gear, not to mention the vast amount of unstock engine configurations. There's a whole EFI group out there building fuel injections for everything, hit and miss til it works. I'm not one of those, but I find the idea interesting. I like to learn things even if I don't plan on using them. FBW sounds neat and was wondering if some NASA escapee was in some back yard shed messing around with old UAV guidance systems, that is also why I didn't restrict it, but just said homebuilts. Not that I have the technical know how or ambition to blaze the trail in this area. Some of the "thinking out of the box" makes me go Hmmm.

No I'm not. I am not going with the stock set up, that is true. But I'm not using a FBW. I was just wondering if anyone had done it. Try reading the first two sentences of post #3

And as it doesn't say this anywhere and anytime someone wants to make a change they're told everything has a reason, I was wondering about this. I was thinking more along the line of recessing it just enough to put three layers in there to make it flush. Or, while skinning the wing the first time cut the foam back beforehand. So crap wouldn't build up in there over time. Depending on the gap. I didn't think it was, but I haven't seen someone install the wings first hand, hence, my confusion.

I do have a set of plans. I'm talking about Chapter 19, Page 8, Fig. 43, the 0.7" recess. What is it for? Wouldn't it have been easier to make the surface flush with the outside skin? From what I can tell, the strake cap is flush. So, I was trying to figure out if .7" of the strake was supposed to fit inside the wing. Oh, and it's a Cozy IV.

I've gone thru the plans a couple of times and I seem to be confused about something. Are the wings only held on by the three hard point bolts that go thru the spar? It almost looks like the strake end and wing do this plug and socket thing for .7", but I'm unable to tell. Or are the wing and strake end just a butt joint. If you unbolt the wing from the spar, will the wing fall straight down, or do you have to pull the wing away from the plane first. Pretend the control linkage isn't installed. I tried to find pics of the wing and the end of the strake, but they are either already attached, or too early in the build process. Looking for pics for completed strake, ready to fly, and wing ready to fly. Thanks

Maybe we finally came up with a good reason to get rid of all these golf courses. I don't golf anyway.

I realize this, but there are definetely not enough airports for the amount of traffic they keep preaching. Then by that measure, are they going to allow you to VTOL from your own driveway? If not, what is the point to design something that takes lots of energy to lift straight up? Moller? There doesn't seem to be enough lifting surface to keep it in horizontal flight so it still needs down thrust to just keep it up.

The Sept 08 issue of KITPLANES has an article on page 43 about car/plane hybrids past and one kind of present. The issue I have with just going to your local airport is what happens every Friday/Monday when everyone wants to go and come back from back somewhere? The airport use will go up to a point that it'll be a traffic jam.

Um, that was posted two years ago.

I think they actually were going to use the rotaries from Freedom-Motors. http://www.freedom-motors.com/ Click the applications on the left side of the screen. These engines aren't in production either.