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

Lynn- I knew the mounts were important to make sure they were included as part of an engine "deal" for that 250 dollar reason...but didn't know there were two different types of mounts.

Are the Lord mount 'dough nuts' the equalizing part here? Or are there different Lord dough nuts for the two types of 540 core mounts. What are the names for the two diff mount arrangements?

Girrrls. What are the mounts that you are building to?

Velocity mentioned absolutely NOTHING about this- all they wanted was to know if it was a parallel or angle head engine....so I am glad this surfaced. I need to have everything match obviously.

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.

Canard Zone has been very helpful for my surfboard building project using Rutan type materials and methods, finally the board is all laminated, ready for finish. Regular surfboard finish is built up resin gloss coats sanded and polished to beauty. We want to use a paint type finish to insure as close to waterPROOF as possible, beauty is secondary. All the resins soak a certain small amount of moisture and I'd think the aviation designers would address this and the players on this forum would know something about what they're thinking about composite resins water absorption and coatings to minimise it. Any thoughts please? Thank you, John C. San Diego

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.

Is a parallel head, a parallel head, a parallel head core all the same? I was under the impression that they were all the same core/same Dynafocal, same Lord mounts?...

The angle head is the heavier 540 engine and that is NOT the engine to put in the CozyIV. I am sure the Cozy girrrlz are savvy to this.

But Lynn, is this the two different cores, therefore two diff dynafocal mounts you are referring to?

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.

TMann, I too am slurping...cuz Chrissi emailed me last week saying they are working on the 540 mount for the Cozy MarkIV...

....now I can just get theirs instead of sending my F.W.template to Velocity..and them farming it out. Low and behold my center top F.W. hardpoint ended up being in the exact 10 inch center to center position they were building the jig to! What luck=]

Sluuuuuuurp!

 

Ok - I admit I am in the wrong post-hole...over here in the rotary rastafarians....but it was...oh f'get it....

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

Is anyone interested in a 6" extension for an O-320? It has a 6" prop flange and I'd like to go to the 7" but not without some "trade-in" value for the old one......

Merry Christmas to all!

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?

The pitch down is excessive and in moderate rain can't be trimmed out. Heavy rain may be a real problem. I always turn away from the heavier stuff so I'm not sure how it will perform if I get caught. I added VG's and it helped some but is still questionable.

 

I hope to gain pitch stability.

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.

Been flying my Long EZ with the GU. Need to build a new Roncz and need plans. Any information would help.

Steve

saemley@earthlink.net

why, what do you think you will gain?

Anybody have an idea of where I can get an IO board for the Vision Microsystems VM 1000 fuel gauges.

An EC 100 might also suffice.

 

 

I have called JPI with no results, nobody seems to have any remaining stock.

 

Thanks

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

I have to agree with Lynn on this one.

The Cozy (because it is a side by side) presents a larger frontal area. As a result, it presents more resistance than say a Berkut.

 

A better project in the canard line would be an Open or Long EZ. Closer to a fast design such as the Berkut if it's a sports car utility that you are looking for.

 

There is a segment here that Richard Riley wrote about building a 250kt EZ.

 

Maybe buy a set of the Berkut drawings.

 

Here is a link to the post for the 250kt Longe-EZ:

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1577&highlight=250

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 mph

its 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 .

Anyone have any ideas about how to modify the Cozy IV to cruise at 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.

One. This observation from flying in a Cozy with a vertical Glass flat[EFIS/EMS] type screen- the angle for non glare on a flat screen is not optimal on the stock panel with it being vertical. What you see in the daylight is a reflection of your belly and if you are wearing a light colored shirt or jacket it really reflects off he screen.

By changing the angle of the instrument panel to be at or closer or on a 90 degree sightline from your eyes- you change that and you don't get the body reflection. The screen nits are plenty bright for the slight upward tilt- that isn't a problem. And of course theres still a glare shield above it-which can be left plans dimension overhang[and cover the glass panels even more due to the inset of the angle].

=]

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

I would appreciate some advice.

 

I am working on the nose and while waiting for parts, I got a lil impatient and built and installed the NG-30's

before receiving my MKNG-6A.

 

The NG-30s are installed, the nose bottom is installed, the nose sides are installed, and the inside layups are complete.

 

Now, to my major disappointmnet, the MKNG-6A bolt won't go through the hole in the NG-30's.

 

Hmmm, so I re-read Chap 13 for the n'th time, and dammit,there it is on page 5, the end of the first paragraph:

 

After cure, open up the holes for the MKNG-6 to 5/16" I.D.

 

Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! My MKNG-6 hole is still 1/4".

 

So, I look inside and I can't see anyway to fit a drill and 5/16" drill bit in there.

 

I have a 90 degree attachment for both my drill and dremel.

 

For the Drill once you add the drill bit I won't be able to get it in there.

 

For the Dremel, it might fit, but they don't make 5/16" drill bits.

 

So, here are my options:

 

1) Cut the drill bit down to a knub, and see if it will fit with the 90 degree attachment.

2) Use the Dremel 90 degree attachment with a 5/16" cylinder HSS cutter. Followed up with a 5/16" grinding stone for clearance.

 

Any other ideas you guys might have??

get one of these you will need it all thru the project

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/tightfittoolkit.php

looks like someone trying to do function following form .... again ... design it pretty and hope it flies

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.

I'll be needing the 100 degree countersink in a couple months. Were is the best/cheapest to pick one up. I'm sure I could pick one up from a local tool supplier, but I really don't want to pay $50.

 

The 100 degree seems to be more rare than the more common 90 degree.

 

thoughts?

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.

Here is the finished T-Tapes

 

Pic 1) T-Tape on the inboard spar rib.

Pic 2) T-Tape on the outbaord spar rib

 

 

 

Lynn

 

One other thing. The T-tape layup was in lieu of the micro "shelf" that runs along the top and bottom of the spar cap. Which probably would've taken just as long to do.

 

Tony

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

Lynn: You need to get your facts straight regarding 2 stroke diesels. If you check out this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_fuel_consumption

 

It contains a table that shows that a current (2006) marine 2 stroke diesel manufactured by Wärtsilä-Sulzer holds the record for best specific fuel consumption @ 163 g/kWh as compared to 300g/kWh for a gasoline engine running at peak efficiency.

 

To give a typical example: If you were to run an O-235 at 100hp in cruise and you achieved a typical 300g/kWh efficiency, this translates to a fuel burn of 9.3 gal/hr. In reality many folks require less than 100hp at cruise, so they may use less fuel. If you had a scaled down version of the marine diesel, the consumption would be 5.05 gal/hr under exactly the same conditions.

 

 

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.

I'm guessing someone bought the rights to supress the concept. They did have running and fully operational engines prior to progress halting. It was a family business and I am just guessing that they got an offer that they couldn't refuse.

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.

O.K. home form work. I just flipped the spar face over onto the ribs here's how it goes.

 

Pic 1) Flox on top of the spar rib

Pic 2) Spar face flipped over onto the rib with the semi cured two plys of bid

Pic 3) Spar face and rib joined correctly

Pic 4) Weight is applied to the spar face to hold everything down untill cured

 

The next step is to pop the spar face off of the T-Tape.(remeber the duct tape?) Repeat for the other side. Once that is complete, I will do the two plys of bid under the T lapping onto the spar rib face.

 

Tony

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.

Here's a pic off of that site :

I'll have more once I download pics from my camera. The 'S' tube allows you to thread the cable through the top and exit going forward (at the bottom) towards it's anchor point. To adjust the pedal you undo a couple bolts, slide it forward or back and bolt it back down. No adjustment of the cable is required at all. The design is a bit pricey but it is also a good value. The workmanship and ingenuity are a real bargain. It is a copyrighted design (and rightly so.)

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

Got pictures? I'll like very much to be able to see them.

 

Thanks,

WileEZ

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

hello berkuters:is very frustrating for me read about thing than i never see,i never have see one berkut airplane,neither a kit,for this reason i ever ask for fotos and drawings and dvd and cd and............the things and procedures than are so normal for tou are of another world for me,for this reason i made a lot of "stupid" and sometimes very stranges question ,but this is the fun in the question:D

thanks for your actual and future patience with me.....and this is nothing compared with when y buy the kit..........jejejejeje

see you

 

P.D.:i have see the 2001 drawing set of john griffiths and see than the canard no have core foam inside ,¿this is different actually?

¿the wings of eureka are the same of the berkut?

for thr momrnt no more questions

see you:D

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

I am looking for a mid time cylinder for my IO360 a1a.

I had a ring break and score my existing cylinder. Any

help would be appreciated.

 

Brent

985 785 8299

Velocity N61VB

best prices on overhauled engine parts

One Stop Aviation Inc.

1119 S Cleveland St

Oceanside, CA 92054

 

(760) 721-1389

So unless the pilot doesn't know what kind of aircraft he's flying, it was NOT a Bateleur, but an "Ultimate Biplane":

 

http://www.ultimatebiplane.com/

 

and:

 

http://moleski.net/ULTBIPE/n38pc.htm

 

What's interesting is that the FAA database HAS the plane listed as a Bateleur. The above web site says:

 

"This aircraft was completed in 1993 and has been designated as a Bateleur 2000 named "Plumb Crazy".

 

Makes no sense, but there you are. I'm guessing it's a confluence of names, and nothing more.

 

So, we can now say that this particular accident has zero applicability to Rutan Derivative canard aircraft, rather than just epsilon (if it was a Bateleur canard), since it's a dissimilar aircraft (conventional biplane), designed for aerobatics, in a maneuver that our aircraft cannot enter.

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