gontek

Not present in Janes AWA 2008-2009.

I just happened to read this this AM, I think it may lend some information useful to the safe design of your harness system. I doubt you will be F-1 racing but this information is offered with safety as a primary objective. "2.7 Safety Harness - It is recommended that each mounting point be designed to support at least a 12g load or 1300 lb. load in the direction of the belt (180 lb x 12 g x 60%). The rules require a shoulder harness. The shoulder straps should be designed to meet the shoulders at an angle of 0 deg. to 30 deg. above the horizontal to prevent download on the spine in an accident." from International Formula One Design Guide 2002, www.if1airracing.com/IF1DesignGuide2002R1.pdf Also refer to Mil-HDBK-17 for information pertaining to composite structures design, I think you need Vol. 2F, and maybe volumes 1 and 3 as well. I read these and MilHDBK 5 when I have trouble falling asleep.

It may be because I have my brakes set to the most aggressive braking level. Just taking off that way doesn't repeat the problem, it is a PIO. The physics involved mostly has to do with inertia and the pitching moment and the problem seems to be a pilot induced oscillation from the elevator and brakes.

One short field takeoff method is hold brakes, runup procedure... throttle full, release brakes - that's a method I learned for Cessna aircraft. When I did this in X-plane my front wheel came up and I had a propstrike - so could that really happen? Maybe my X-plane pilot doesn't weigh as much as me. I have no delusions that I learned anything about a Real Cozy MKIV, just the simulated X-plane version, mind you.

I flew my first Cozy IV in X-plane. Using X-plane V9 on my new screaming machine with a 15" lcd. need to work on the graphic situation. I got a little lost for a minute (I think due to the 15" screen) but I made a nice approach and landing the 1st time at 85 kts. The first thing I learned is don't let the brakes off at full throttle - short takeoff method does not apply.

I googled it, and read in a few places that the crakcase is aluminum, and the automobile gross weight is reduced ~20kg with the diesel option. So, I have no answer, but maybe there is something to hope for. Jane's AWA 2009 should be out now, if not soon, I remember seeing BMW in the 2008-09, but I think they were motorcycle engines. I would be suprised not so see this in there with specs as an aircraft powerplant candidate. I'll check with the library.

You're right! I wonder if there's a reason for that. On my cheapo 200 series garmin, have to use U D R L but it autocompletes possible codes so it's pretty easy, even while you're bouncing down through clouds talking to a controller. I'm not sure how the automobile thing or the lake thing would work on those.

Check out the Garmin GPS MAP 496. It's like a NUVI with aviation databases and lake beds.

I have designed a couple of aircraft, back in my aerospace days, but they fall into the category of DARPA projects that never make it off paper. I have a feel for roughly how many airplanes need to be sold in order to make a project break even, and how much this stuff costs, before a scent of a profit ever wafts into the factory. I admit know almost nothing of Aceair and their new owners - I just know the odds are against them. I sincerely hope they beat the odds, because that is one beautiful bird. I like the build from scratch - buy the plans business model more than kits, but that's just my opinion.

I agree and you know me too well. It is very beautiful, and I can't wait to see the video. I am just being pessimistic today I guess. The Coffin being the website, however I hope they can resurrect this kit, but the odds are more against them to succeed with their business than me to build an airplane. I really really like this design. And if they need diesels, the WAM 120 has a nice feature article in EAA Sport, right after an amazing Cozy, the owner of which flew it from the Middle East to OSH. Or the SMART Suprex. I know I'm a great monday morning quarterback, everyone does it, I can use my imagination for what could be, even when things are going well.

That's a nice coffin, but it looks to me like a funeral. I'm thinking widen it to a side by side, move the engine outboard to the wing, and add another engine on another wing to maintain symmetry. Ouch, that carbon fiber is expen$$$ive. I'll never understand why in the heck does anyone want to take the wings off and pull their airplane around on a trailer. Maybe it's a European thing? - hanger rent is some of the most inexpensive real estate where I'm from.

Can you put the videos on youtube?

More power ogh ogh ogh

I guess it goes under stability augmentation but the list shoud include improved pilot ability to control an inherently unstable aircraft. Also I would definitely consider a mechanical linkage as one of the redundant systems in this thought experiment.

I have sort of been following along the NASA Active Aeroelastic Wing project lateley. I think an aeroelastic wing with FBW FCS would be a really cool project. This discussion got me thinking about it and designing an inherently unstable aircraft. Or using FBL and designing around that concept. I was just pondering this when I realized the Wright brothers had this figured out. I sort of remember something about Bodie Diaphrams and root locust plops. but I guess Mr. Bode and the MEMS came along later. But seriously that's not gonna happen until a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.