Lynn Erickson

Looks like it need to be up dated again

Rutan Breakfast Flyin at Chino airport, flo's airport restaurant Jan. 1 2008 8:00 AM

There are about 100 different lord mounts types that are use on the 540's for differing reasons as hardness, softness, dampening and some are a mixed combination of these . the hole in the mount is the same size. angle or straight is generally the determining factor but not always. I have known several builders the have had a mount built only to find out it is the wrong one.

I believe you have that backwards, the surfboard was built a long time before Rutan came along and used the same materials and methods to build an airplane.I was building surfboards using dock foam and epoxy back in 1962 ( very nasty stuff back then ) My Son has been building surfboards for 10 years using west epoxy and they all float. the amount of water absorbed on the amount of resin used in a board would be like 1 nano micron. the problem with water is not the water absorbed by the resin, it is the water that leaks in between the glass and the foam as in pin holes but if coated with the clear resin and sanded smooth this is not much of a problem. a surfboard only stays in the water for a few hours at a time. these resins are used in building boats that stay in the water for years. paint has been used on boards but it just adds weight and gets scratched of from use. if looks are secondary then coat with clear resin and hit the surf. besides a Cool board does not make you a Cool Surfer Dude. and the board that looks the worst is almost always the board that works the best.

the mounts on the 540's are removable and not cast with the case as on the 360's they bolt onto the case. there are two different types ( angles ) and this was selected buy the airframe manufacture . so it just depends what model engine you have. they can be changed as the bolt pattern on the engine is the same but beware they go for about $ 240 ( used ) for each mount bracket. as for the lord mounts they are too selected by the airframe manufacture and there are as many types as there are aircraft. many even have a different pt# for each mount position on an airframe. many of the mounts are eccentric and need to be mounted a certain way and again each mount is different in the way it is oriented on the airframe.

Be aware that there are two different dynafocal mounts used on the Lycoming 540's. the engine mounting ears come in two different angles and are not interchangeable

The 7" flange is not needed on the o-320 the 7" flange is designed for the higher 180 hp and up. what brand is the extension?

before I would build a new canard I would try checking the contour. some of the canards were built to be light and they sacrificed the shape. afraid to add to much filler. look closely at the spar cap area on the top, if it has even a slight flat spot it will dip in rain. the other is the trailing edge if there is any lip that is rolled up it will have an effect. there are many of those canards that fly fine in rain with no pitch change at all. there is nothing wrong with the airfoil but it needs to be built very accurate in contour.

why, what do you think you will gain?

did you talk to vision direct. they operate seperatly from jpi and jpi is never any help on visions stuff. call 830 775-6330

frontal of a wider fuselage does add to the drag but the lancair is side by side. the lancair also has a vey big engine and a very thin wing. it also should be noted that the lancair's need at least 350 hp two get up to 300 mph and even then that is top speed not cruise speed. even the berkut is not a 300mph machine. the 540 model tops out at about 270 mphits not the frontal area that limits the cozy design its the wing. the big fat wing on the cozy has very high drag above 200 mph. it is basicly a glider airfoil. selected for high lift ( with no flaps ) and high altitude cruise performance. designing/building a true 300mph aircraft is a very different amimal. look at the lancair evolution to see what it takes. the solution is really not that difficult, build a lancair evolution or just find a designer/ aero engineer and give him a couple of years and 5 million, or so, dollars and you two can cruise 300 mph .

the short is. take the cozy IV plans and make as many modifications as nessesary until it looks and flys just like a Lancair IV with a TIO550. the cozy is a 200 mph aircraft if you want to go 300 build a 300 mph aircraft.

8 Degrees is the standard aircraft panel forward tilt angle. many instruments are made for this angle but they do cost more. some of the cert. Efis panels can be made for this tilt. not sure about Dyon and the like. standard steam gauge Gyro's are avalible in 8 degree forward tilt

get one of these you will need it all thru the projecthttp://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/tightfittoolkit.php

Many of us have had this aircraft right in front of us all along and did not even relize it. just omit the chapter where you build the wings and attach the winglets to the strakes. install a turbo fan engine and hang on.

here in the states the common hardware one is 87 degrees. the 90 degree is used mostly on metric. the 100 degree is used mostly on aircraft. the 100 degree should be available thur a machine shop supply.

If you are following Daves lead you can't go wrong. the micro shelf must be a Berkut specific method. on the berkut the forward spar face is set into the spar about even with the sparcaps and on the long /cozy it is 2" forward of the spar caps. I believe that is how Dave got back some of the fuel capacity and space taken up by the gear leg wells

Yes and that is true of large watercooled diesels where they don't have to carry there own coolant that is to be recycled in a closed system. the diesel can weigh what ever it takes to make it run. not a lightweight aircooled unit using cooling air as hot as 100 degrees F and the naturally unbalenced radial crankshaft configuration. when you scale them down they always loose efficiency if not then it would have already been done with a smaller engine.

Why would they spend money to kill an idea that died at the end of WWI, a two stroke radial? almost all of there claims as to how it is so great an idea turn out to be just the opposite. two strocks use less fuel, Radials have less frontal area, weight less and dont vibrate. they have been breathing to many diesel fumes.

This a bit over kill, it seems to be a good way to bond them together but the bond is so much stronger then the spar face it is unnessecary. there is no load on the forward spar face it is only there to act as a close out. for the fuel tank. if done properly the flox on the edge of the bulkheads is more then strong enough. when cutting open tanks to repair leaks we have found that you can not break the 1/4" bond with out destorying the tank cover or the bulkhead. watch out for the time consuming mods that just add weight and time to the project and have no gain to performance. the berkut is a proven design and you don't need to reinvent the wheel.

these are nice units but if you are on a bugget they should be placed almost last on the list of options as the owner is almost always the pilot and very seldom does he let the coplilot land the bird. maybe in a side by side model but never in a tandem. even if you fly someone elses bird you can adapt to the brake/rudder pedal position for a couple of landings. the rudders are almost never used during flight, some times during takeoff and some of the landings

go to. http://tomslongez.com/data/comments.asp

the early wings are made with the foam core . they did make molds for the wings and canard and the latter ones use the molded skins. for some good pictures and video go to: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut.htm

best prices on overhauled engine parts One Stop Aviation Inc. 1119 S Cleveland St Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 721-1389

makes more since now, it was powered by a AEIO 360. but why did he bail and was he doing aerobatics at 1500 feet or is that when he decided to bail after trying to recover