gontek

I also learned that the insurance companies have relaxed their policies for pilots in the last year. They should, we are probably their best customers.

I do have term life too. In fact the Whole life policy is rather small (~$250K) and is primarily for investment purposes while allowing me to have a lifestyle of financing things and keeping the interest to myself. Your point is well taken on the Term + investments vs Whole life. I keep my eggs in many different baskets.

Part of my efforts in convincing my wife I need to fly and build airplanes was to get a life insurance policy (sort of as a bribe I guess). Seems like a good idea, right? I got a whole life policy with an OPP rider. I can use this to borrow against the cash value in order to finance things like plans, parts, businesses, cars, planes, etc. Rather than pay a bank for financing I am financing myself through the cash value in the policy, circulating the money in and out of my policy, paying myself the interest, and earning dividends on the whole cash value whether it's in my pocket or in the account. I also have some general term life BS but after thinking about my plans and how and it fits me I thought a whole life policy was a do-able thing. Anyone else heard of this or do this, or am I totally gettimg scammed somehow? The poliy is through New York Life and it's basically referred to as the Infinite Banking Concept (IBC). I figure life insurance, while generally a touchy subject, can & should be discussed amongst a bunch of folks who build and fly airplanes from scratch. So do any of you have life insurance, and if so, what type? An if not, why not?

You know, I think one could slap some wings a canard and a prop on that dutch motorcycle and be able to fly.

I have been thinking the Suprex SMART engines would be very good aircraft engines. The daimler-benz Suprex 3 cyl diesels made in Europe have a lot of great qualities for aircraft at around 150lbs, 150 lb/ft torque and 80 hp, running 2500-4500 RPM. And this is cool, the dutch have taken the Suprex engine and made a motorcycle around it with a CVT. http://www.dieselmotorfiets.nl/ They claim 100 mpg, I don't disbelieve it. Expensive though at 17,500 euros. The marines also have a diesel motorcycle that gets 96 mpg. The Marines version has a little less technology in the engine, and is lower power so not as exciting. http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/ So, anyone want to put the Suprex in their EZ? That would get some long range.

not sure if it is common knowledge: Munk effect - this is a measure of the tendency for a fuselage shape to induce a pitching moment. If you condsider a cylinder, it does not have as good of aerodynamic properties flying end to end as it does with the round side forward. This has high munk effect. Consider what happens when you throw an empty paper towel roll longitudinally, or shoot an arrow without fletchings. Or roll up a sheet of paper, put a rubber band around it, and throw it. Sorry for the crappy definition I have a better one in a book somewhere but that is the gist of it. your average Boeing/ Airbus has a lot of munk effect. Sometimes this is a factor in sizing empennage and more munk effect usually results in more drag and less desirable purturbed longitudinal and lateral directional stability characteristics. All Right? I guess it is sometimes referred to as munk moment.

I enjoy the sense of humor on this forum a lot. Allow me to expand on my thoughts why I like this with a back of the napkin drawing: Hopefully I did that right. As you can see, considering only pilot and fuselage shape, the fuselage can be shaped like a wing. If I want a really fast airplane, the benefit is lower fuselage wetted area and canopy parasite drag, and little to no (actually negative) munk effect. I beileve there would also be much added benefit with control over slow flight at high angle of attack - I'd imagine it being similar to maintaining a wheelie on a bike. Of course engineering around all the problems that have been identified is no easy feat. But neither is building an airplane from scratch. Having a fuselage that contributes to lift.. contributes a lot to lift.. it's been done...

Wonder woman has a plane like that, only she sits fully upright. If I were a superhero I would definitely fly prone. Then again, I'd want to land upright, crash safety would not be any issue, and I wouldn't need any airframe. when you design an aircraft configuration you get a lot of passing thoughts about options like "prone" vs "reclined" and they usually pass by fairly quickly once you consider integration with the driving factors of your design criteria (what you want to achieve). The more I think about position, the more I would like to consider prone seating like on a crotch rocket or a hang glider. This thought is not passing by so easily.

Don't have any good links or info, mostly junk. Need to go look up more in Janes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hang_gliding http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru11&page=346 http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/gloster-meteor-f8-prone-position.cfm http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/berlin9.html http://en.scientificcommons.org/18705929

Oh and I will be seated in the upright and maybe slightly reclined positions.

IS it 'recumbent' seating what you call the pilot position in the cozy/longEZ? Suppose you had unlimited technology for control systems and instrument display on a canard configuration similar to a LongEZ or Cozy in size. I am just trying to imagine what it would feel like to be seated in a prone position. In any aircraft really, but similar to a hand glider or the Wright flyer. I have found only a few aircraft with seating this way, need to go to Library to up Janes. I saw a report that more G's can be withstood this way. I'm trying to think about how a pilot might fly and navigate comfortably in that position. There are pros and cons to every option so think it over yourself and feel free to suggest some pros and cons of different seating positions. If you ever have ideas thought out in terms of safety, field of view, blind spots, ergonomics, control options and instrumentation, please discuss. I'll start: Con: it's different Pros: You'd feel like a shark flying it. potential field of view fuselage shape canopy size and parasite problems: getting in and out easily wearing a helmet? crash safety/ejection? proven harnesses & structures? proven intuitive pilot control inputs? I can't do Oskosh this year. Have too many places to go, people to see, things to do, more I would like to do - but it will finance the fun in the future. Oh and I will be in LA this weekend for vacation. Flying Southwest.

New engine category. Google it. Then let's get someone to claim they are considering a quasiturbine retrofit of their cozy design. Oh heck I'll do it. Then let's argue about it. It'll be fun.

http://www.ezarc.org/downloads/army_ez_eval.pdf has everything I wanted exactly.

Thanks for pointing that out, I based on your information I was able to find that article here: http://www.ezchronicles.com/2007/03/longez-more-practical-airplane.html I might be able to look at the numbers here and plug them in to find the based on the author's assumptions the effective parasite drag and lift to drag. My calculations were of the very late at night variety so I'll go over everything later and see if I can't find any clues in this article. BTW - here is another potential solution to the original question, when focusing on efficiency more than range: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/research_cafeformula.php the discussions that ensued are very informative though. the report I am referencing is here, under Engines/Motors/Fuels Papers" http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pav_tech_lib.php yet another gem of information I gleaned while lurking in the canardzone archives.

Allright, I'll ask this question here because I searched for keyword "Drag Polar" and found this topic of discussion. My query to you smart fellers involves determination of "Optimum Cruise Speed" and hence cruise Drag Polar for a canard aircraft. Based on my calculations, I can mostly figure it out but I want to narrow down the Equivalent Parasite Drag Area of a long EZ or a Cozy. I can do this by calculation or you can try to estimate or verify it by looking at the front view of your aircraft and guesstimation. Knowns: Weight Geometry (S and b) Standard Atmosphere Assumptions: Oswalds e = 0.6 Prop Efficiency = 0.85 Unknowns: f = Equivalent Parasite Drag Area L/D ratio in cruise config. I wish to use this information for my reference in sizing aircraft based on the report AIAA-80-1847 Fuel Efficiency of Small Aircraft, BH Carson, 1980. Does not have to be accurate to 1/100th SF but I know some of you guys have probably figured this out before, or can point me to some useful numbers. I'd estimate f for a longEZ to be very low, maybe 3 to 5 ft sq, but that range of error makes a big difference for my purposes. I can also speculate that the L/D in Cruise for a canard is high (15-25?) but once again that range is too great for me to assume much from it. Actually all I need is best glide speed and I think I can figure it out, so what is that? However, feel free to do your own calculations to determine the parasite drag, or point out that this information is very obvious and I have overlooked it.

Ironically I suspect I am being baited on a sujbect about smartfish. My better judgement tells me to respond to private question via PM as it is off topic. However I have no reason to hide my feelings from this group of relative strangers whom I strongly admire and respect, so here is my response, for all to dissect: I am not building yet. I am thinking about building a lot - where to build, what to build, what engine, budget, where to hangar, how obsessive would I get...so many decisions to make and I am a type of person who takes time to make elaborate plans from start to finish. I currently have other plans involving family, finances, flying and the future, and I admit I am having some difficulty integrating all aspects of these plans with building, but I'll get it worked out by the deadline. I do love it when a plan comes together. There are many decisions I am considering and this forum has been helpful at brainwashing me into the fiberglass/foam composite branch of amateur experimental aircraft. The EAA is also a great source of info and support that I was not familiar with just a few years ago. I have wanted to fly since I can remember, and I am a pilot. Now aircraft ownership is my goal and I decided that building is the path for me. Now that I have made that decision, I am finding many more important decisions. The best way to make important decisions is to arm yourself with as much reliable information as possible. I hope to make trips to Oskosh and/or Rough River this year to really see firsthand all available options - as well as meet many of you whom I regard now as heroes, celebrities, and icons of experimental aircraft and canard pop culture. highest regards, Kyle G

I would not doubt that anyone on this forum has that movie!!

One unusual Canard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie I was looking at an aircraft yesterday on this forum that reminded me of the XB-70 except that it was a 2 seat tandem that some germans were selling in prototype and rights for 1 mil. This is a really neat airplane that encountered a series of unfortunate events.

I love some of the aircraft I find from this forum. I would totally invest in this idea but unfortunately I have interest in a similar project which includes solid/liquid metal hydrogen structure, variable geometry, Searl Effect anti-gravity drive and time travel capability. http://dave.zfx.com/nav.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hammerhead_Atlantis.jpg I think hammerhead sharks are canard fish.

My vote is for the Piaggio. My prof. Dr Jan Roskam was a contributor to the design of the Piaggio. http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=401http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Roskam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Roskam My years of learning from Dr. Roskam using the Piaggio as an example has biased my vote. Maybe if I new more about the starship... but in my opinion the Piaggio is supreme and the Piaggio II is starting to pick up in sales.

http://www.ionaircraft.com/ I ran across this in Jane's the other day. Those investors who lost their dream$ in Dreamwings took matters into their own hands. They removed the foreplane and beefed up the empennage. I wish them well, it looks like they are putting together a great LSA. On the cutting edge -outside -the box , check this out. http://www.amvaircraft.com/index.html I (thought I) had an idea like this but power a horizantal ducted fan with a jet - almost what they are doing here. My concept was to use a small jet engine to power the fan, push them up into the Flight levels and close the ducts to make it a VTOL BWB VLJ. Cost goes up at least a hundred grand with the turbine though - and that 's just a prototype. anyhow, this is pretty sweet.

Good point. You would be fools to make your propulsion decisions based solely on information from forum posts about weight estimates. Unless possibly there was plenty of discussion dissecting the nature of the information along with some Dr. Phil type metaphors about gardens of potatoes and turds, in which case at least it would be entertaining. A good source of data for different aircraft engines is in the back of Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft. Check your local library to see if they have current copies. I do not know of any good single source for automotive engine data. The links posted are the only ones I have seen, and the references listed are mostly magazines like "Car and Driver" or "Popular Science". Even then the info will be different due to modifications required for aircraft use. I don't even think SAE has anything like this.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/engines/series/pdfs/540ci%20Engine%20Insert.pdf http://www.lycoming.textron.com/engines/series/pdfs/360ci%20Engine%20Insert.pdf Turds or potatoes> Never heard that expression. I'm not just pulling these data out of my ass though.

Here's the results of another search. It's not too hard to google an engine and the word weight. http://www.aviator.cc/aircraft_engine_weights.html Then again, the internet is not the most reliable source of data. The public library would be better.