Hans S

Again, where do you land it? With a wingspan of over 8 feet you'll need a runway, or at least 10ft if you try squeezing onto a normal highway. Where are all these runways going to be?

So I have seen some of these Discover and Learning Channel shows in which they try to push flying craft ease up on the congestion. Driving home one day I happened to try figuring out how I could land or take off. Even is some sort of flying wing or bi-plane-ish were used, there is way to much crap over the roads. VTO uses a butt load of energy to get off the ground. Unless every subdivision gets its own runway, I don't see how they are really going to get anything close to this to happen.

That's kind of what I was getting at. None.

So then, stall characteristics aside, what conventional design meets or beats a Cozy, performance, cost, community support, material, plans built, engine?

I mean contra-rotating. I'm looking for some education. 1. The S.American Cozy with the two engines, why didn't they tie both engines to a single prop. 2. Is contra rotating inline more efficient than say counter rotating, but one on each side of centerline? Yaw issues because one prop craps out not withstanding. 3. If you need to gear down because of an auto conversion anyway, would it be more efficient to build a contra box with two smaller contra props? This could give a fluff factor for high nose landing/takeoffs. I've seen helicopter designed with contra rotors. Except for the complexity of the system I can't find the effiency issues on the net. Edit: Let me clarify that I can find lots of info on boat props, but air is few and far between. Tho from what I've found, could be a good way to go, for some.

I won't be there. But a thought could be to have it catered. Send your money by a cut-off date. Have someone order for the amount of people paid. Post the exact names that are paid up. If you aren't on the list, bring your own food, if you think you paid, bring a copy of the cancelled check or the paypal receipt. This way everyone eats the community same stuff, the local grub businesses like us more because they are making money, and no one has to figure out how to bring 50lbs of salad on a commercial flight. If people need community togetherness, meet at the Keg.

The last numbers I saw say preds have a incident rate of 8.7 per 100,000hrs. That's really worse than any of the homebuilts? It's better than an F-16 at 10.2 per 100,000hrs. And the propulsion system was the biggest problem, turbo rotax 914. I'll get you a mint after years of bated breath;)

Crissi, Are you talking lawn dart or skidding? Either way, it just isn't a hole. There is a frame that is built into the skin to hold the window. Then there is the window material itself (glass, plexy, Lexan, whatever material) filling that hole pushing on its edges against the frame. Then there is the outer frame that actually holds the window, so it doesn't just fall out. Unless it is built with some rigidity, it's going to whistle. That area will probably be stronger with the mod, but heavier for it too.

Thanks Marc, but, I didn't mention at all that I wanted to do it. I already know I have nowhere near the knowledge base for the electronics. I was just wondering about it and if there were tinkerers out there working on stuff like this, hence the Design & Modification Forum. So what are the stats on the reliability between mech and wire? Any real hard numbers? Military and commercial jets are pretty reliable. That's quite a big assumption. More than likely they wouldn't post because of the backlash of not building to plans. Just because old technology works, does not mean it is the best or only way. Predators and other UAVs of that size are fly by wire! And there is a lighter system that I'll be using, tho it isn't FBW. To me it is simpler, lighter, better routing, and more reliable. In a few years when I'm done building I'll post the results.

Ha! I think the visibilty of the Wonder Woman plane of the 70s TV series is the answer.

Anyone tried it in one of the variety of homebuilts?

Found it http://www.ez.org/feature/F0502-1/F0502-1.htm

I know this doesn't help, but he has a website and has more pics and a write up of the windows. I've been to the website, but can't remember how I got there. It's been awhile.

The IBIS is the look I was talking about. Thanks, I couldn't remember where to find a pic of what I meant.

Well, as I said, I was just wondering if anybody had. Flaps and other mechanical means to make up for the removal of some strake wasn't what I had in mind. More to the question of how far the envelope could go either way.

O.k. a quick look talks about the CG strake mod and the second to the last line says that Marc thinks the aerodynamics would be negligable: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1297 By no means am I saying what they did and what I'm thinking are the same. I'm just wondering how far back you can go with the strake before it becomes a aerodynamic SNAFU. EDIT: Marc sent his post before I posted this. Sorry.

By the time I'm done with building and mods, I won't be registering it as one anyway. It's an experimental. The Cozy plans are just a base. Just as the Long was a base for the Cozy. I'll have to go back and look at the strake extension posts, but I could swear people say that extending the strake is fine as it isn't part of the lifting surface.

I've been wondering something. It seems a lot of people are going to the extended strake. Has anyone thought of going the other way? What I'm thinking is taking the leading edge of the wing straight to the fuse. I realize that fuel storage would be drastically reduced. I keep hearing that the strake isn't a lifting surface, so, shortening (along the fuse) it shouldn't cause too much issue and it would lighten the total weight of the aircraft. Does the strake/fuse area of attachment really need to be that much to absorb the twisting in the wing, or is all the stress being absorbed in the spar? What I'm thinking is this: 1. enough fuel for 3-4 hour flight. 2. fuel pods for those REALLY long trips. 3. Huge advantage in view as it can be taken back almost to the rear seat. 4. less air friction area.

There is usually a people sized door to the outside of a garage. Find and old door or box off with plywood and insulation and put a window shaker A/C until the plane is done, or at least until fall/winter. Summer is the only REALLY hot time. I'm in the St. Petersburg area.

Nice stripper kayak

I like tinkering and thinking outside the box with just about anything. The whole experimental aviation is based on it. And thanks to all those that got a hold of me offline. I liked the history and development. It seems that Burt built the Defiant after helping Dave design the Gemini.

All the mods, except for the diesel have been done and documented. If I come across a project before the garage is emptied, then great, otherwise I'll start from scratch. The twin thing was just curiousity as to what the involvment went to design the Defiant and Gemini from the single engine variety and how much structurally had to be added, this foam constructioin is some tuff stuff. My favorite trimarans are foam core and they take some ABUSE smacking around in the water with a mast and sail trying to rip them in half. Even the crashes and gear up landings don't seem to obliterate these planes. The dreaming part is pretty much over. I knew that the build could take years, so I wanted do do any mods the first time. I didn't want to have any rework or wishing I had added something. Once built, my wife will probably bury me in it. If you look at some of my original posts on this site, I think in concepts, you'd really think I was nuts, a removable wing trailerable cozy. The dreams, the dreams.

Cool! I like it.

Use what you want, 30k was just on this particular bike, not all my riding. Yeah, SE is Harley, but at least the parts from their performance shop are a little more robust. Never had any of my bikes leave me on the side of the road, don't know what to tell you. Bad speedometer sending unit has been my only problem, still ran fine, just didn't know how fast I was going. A stock tube frame Buell had 91hp at 6800RPM, these were hopped up sportser engines, Harley supplied them. Mine is warmed up with exhaust, rejetting, KN filter and ignition box. I'm getting a little more than stock. And no, I wouldn't fly with a stock Harley, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if I built it. $10k? I can build cheaper. But again, not what I'm going to use. And the new engines are much better than the pans, knuckles, shovels of the past. Don't need ocean front, I live on the Gulf.

My Buell uses a sportster engine, 95ish HP. I beat the crap out of it and never had a problem. Over 30k miles. They can be very reliable if you actually do maintanance. True the old generation motors had issues, but the new engines are much better. And I wasn't thinking a Stock Harley motor, more like every aftermarket piece that is not Harley. Screaming Eagle makes a fairly decent motor from the cases up.