Hans S

The TDI id 135kg dry. appr 300lbs If you looked at the graph, the dyno runs showed 200hp at 2600. Wouldn't need a PRSU. Just a bearing. Max RPM goes to 4000. But you don't need to push the engine as it still gives 200hp at have its RBM range. The US versions are getting 150hp with simple chip mods and exhausts. Some people have gotten them over 300hp, with a lot more effort. 200hp is fairly easily doable. Heavy, yes, but you can drop down the fuel qty for the same range. LOOONG lasting, even with higher boosting. The bottom end can handle a butt load of power, it's the connecting rods that need to be beefed on these engines after 275hp. They can run on diesel, jet fuel, kerosine, biodiesel. Biodiesel can be made for 50 to 80 cents a gallon. Cheaper by far than any of the other engines I've seen as I can rebuild and maintain them myself, huge network of people modifying them for more reliable power. What does a 360 weigh in at?

For those that like pretty line graphs. http://www.idc-solutions.net/VWTDIHPandTorque.html

http://forums.tdiclub.com/

I was looking to uprading a vw TDI and found out they are getting 200+ hp out of the little four bangars 1.8,1.9. The torque almost doubles the hp. One guy is getting 327hp and almost 700 ft/lbs of torque out of a 1,9 . They weigh in at about 300lbs. Does that come into the average weight of what people are putting back there. My Jetta might not get its engine back.

He had them on a lot of his designs, bombers and fighters.

Anyone see this? http://users.wpi.edu/~stay1or/canard2.htm

Yeah, it was the mach tuck thread I was talking about.

I think you missed my point, or maybe I'm off. 1. When taking off or landing you are at a slower speed this causes the front canard to lose lift quicker than the main. You either have to be traveling faster to keep the nose up or be pulling way back on the controls trying to keep the nose up. So, my point was to change the angle enough at landing or takeoff that the nose was lifting quicker and stay up at a slower speed on its own. 2. At increasing speed the lift that the canard continues to create makes it so you need to constantly trim down, eventually running out of trim. The ability to say, drop the angle enough so that the lift is reduced would bring your controls back into a middle level giving back some adjustment that could be needed to trim for CG adjustments. 3. Top speed from what I understand through the Roncz design and the mach number puts it at about 350mph. After that, the canard stalls by itself and the plane becomes a lawn dart, that is unrecoverable, so I read. Pilot wouldn't need to be an engineer to fly, just have a few settings. a. Straight level cruise, have three or four settings in inclination so every 25 kts has a setting, which would bring the main wing control surfaces back into their middle range. b. All around flying, stock setting, the safest setting for playing around. c. Landing and takeoff, equal to or slightly after the main stalls. You'd use this setting under 50'. Stalling the canard at this height wouldn't give you any help to gain speed anyway.

I hadn't read over his stuff yet, so I didn't ask. Still haven't, so I'm still not going to.

I was going to ask about ducted fans, figured I'd wait on that.

I've got a good suit. Military, heavy industrial electrician, twin 8yr old boys, ADHD, married. I laugh at the flaming, HAR HAR HAR! (Pirate accent)

Waiter, Thanks, I hadn't seen the directions before, just those pics.

The quotes came from various sites stating their views on the subject. Thinking about it more, I think Rutan's idea was more, "Keep it simple." (not quote) and The numbers came from various threads on this site. As far as putting fuel where the fixed gear used to be, cool, that's more of the explanation that I would need, not that I should look into a Voyager. As stated earlier, I am working on getting the plans. If it bothers you to answer questions, then don't respond, I'll let you know when I get them and you can flame me by specific page numbers then. I've been told that it has to do with parking it so it doesn't flop backwards as there is virtually no weight in the front and that you don't want to be walking on the strakes. This post originally started as a way to use the pants as a dual purpose type of thing. Fuel was my first thought, but as others stated, hot brakes+fuel=oops. But anyone using fixed gear has the ability to use it for something, though I don't know what. And, as stated before, I'll probably go with RG, but it might not be infinity. I try to do a search before I ask a question, if I couldn't find it in search mode how am I expected to know if someone has thought about it?

TMann, <Hmmmmmm ...... maybe the Cozy isn't the right canard for your specifications. Have you looked at the Voyager? It has much more range and is a proven design.>TMann Maybe you should have thought about the Voyager also, as it has retractable landing gear and the designer Puffer/Rutan said RG BAD on their Long and Cozy designs.

So TMann, If I read about that gear correctly, you lose fuel capacity, gain weight, cost, possible insurance rate increase, risk of gear up landing and complexity, for only about 5kts? I'm not sure how that is well educated, but O.K. I'll probably go with RG too.

<Retractable gear is inside from the ends of the strakes, pods mount to the wing, outboard of the gear.> CZ http://www.roughriver.org/2007/img_3421A.jpg http://www.infinityaerospace.com/acgear.jpg I was going off what I could see in the pictures I had looked at. Thanks for the correction.

Anyone thought of the Tupolov way of RG instead of the, in the strake way?

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the stock fuel tanks are more than enough for me, at five hours I'm trying to claw my way out of a car. The occasional extra fuel long flight option would be nice to have. I'm just trying to bounce ideas out there, for me or anyone else. This is a tuff crowd and some people don't want to try out their flame suit. Here is a for instance, going from fixed gear to retracts. MUCH easier to do it while building instead of after. So, any reinforcement needed, I want to do before I have to take a zaw zaw to it. From the pictures I've seen, if you go with the infinity RG, the standard baggage pods won't fit, they take up the same area.

CZ, Skymasters have a baggage pod that can be attached underneath, you could put a couple dead bodies in it. (: (: closest I could think of to rolling smileys

Actually I'm working on getting plans for a cozy IV from the classifieds here. Basically just working on the actual shipping logistics right now. The pants utility idea was just a thought to use otherwise useless space, it's there, might as well use it. The other mods I thought about on the other threads were just ideas rattling around in my head. Kind of thinking out loud. If I don't ask, how would I know what does and doesn't work? As it turns out in the end, there won't be TOO much deviation from the plans, isn't going to stop me from trying to get that extra somethin somethin out of it though. All in all I'm pretty sure I found the best compromise in what I want, but as I haven't started cutting foam and laying glass, this is the best time for me to design any changes. Heck, they put rocket engines on one of these things, I know not the same model, you don't think that might have been a little tweak of the plans?

Yeah, I thought about that too. It was just a thought. Use the pants as baggage pods maybe? If you are going to have the wheel pants there anyway causing drag, you might as well make them into something useful.

I've heard some people looking for more space for fuel. Anyone thought about incorporating large wheel pants as a fuel tank. The advantage as opposed to putting a drop tank type are that when they are on the wheel section, they don't get added as unsprung weight on your supension or wing structures, just the wheels. If you don't need the extra fuel, put the smaller pants on. Wouldn't have to eat any cabin room, as I read some brought the tank into the cabin a few inches. Just a thought.

The thought I had on the canard variable angle is this... You don't need the canard to stall before the main wing as on take off you are trying to go as fast as you can as quick as you can to get off the runway. If you are going too slow and the main wing stalls, the 10-100ft of altitude isn't going to help you in trying to build some speed up anyway. If you are at cruise or max power, you aren't going to stall the main wing anyway. Unless you are doing loops. If you want to over hp the plane to see how fast you can go before the wings rip off, taking the lift and drag out of the canard would be beneficial. Just out of curiosity, what is the fastest Cozy IV out there? Did the wings/strakes need to be beefed up? If you are just putsin around, set the angle to stock.

I think I've got her talked out of the BRS. I don't think either one of use realizes what a pain in the butt it would turn into. As I was driving to work this evening, I work nights, I thought about another poss mod on a Cozy. If I understand this correctly, the canard stalls before the main wing. Because of this, you have to zip along a runway to faster than necessary to create the lift needed to raise the front end. My question is if the canard could have a hinge attached to the trailing edge. When you take off or land you could raise the leading edge up a few degrees to creates more lift and equal the main wing. Slower speed take off and landings could then be done which would mean you could use shorter runways. Does this make sense?

the turbo adds more hp/lb than any other mod. It will give sea level performance at higher altitude. I've done custum turbo systems on cars and motorcycles, so for me, they are not complicated. the BRS was used like "crescent" wrench, just a generic term. Though, I don't know if there is another company that sells them. Anyway, maybe we can do without. The wife and I can talk about it.