gontek

In trying to research a lot of the newer auto engines, I found that manufacturer info hardly ever list weight, in fact specs are far from standard. It's just not that important to auto people like it is to us aero people. I found a few engine weight lists out there though. You would have to look to the references to find details on exactly what was weighted - as in dry, wet, installed, etc, but these lists give some useful baseline information that can be found on the web. 1. http://www.bacomatic.org/~dw/library/txt/engfyi.htm 2. http://www.team.net/sol/tech/engine.html 3. http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html Since I am using your post topic here are some answers from the lists: Lycoming O-360 (or equivalent) Lycoming O-540 - 515 lb (1,3) Mazda 13b Rotary - 260 lb (1,3) BMW 330d Volvo D5 Subaru WRX 2.5 Toyota Avensis 2.2l D-4D engine that gives you two answers anyway. It looks like new data is hard to some by, the most current reference I saw is from 2004. Time to hit the public library. refs 1 and 3 appear to be duplicates of each other, with ref 1 parsed a little better.

Here are some other engines. frankly, I am skeptical of the performance claims here. These are too small for your average cozy but I suppose could be appropriate for a vari-EZ or something else. For your reading pleasure: http://www.simonini-flying.com/victor2plus_eng.htm http://www.hyperflite.co.uk/ul260i.html http://www.vernermotor.com/index.asp?sec=9 http://www.vortechonline.com/engines/ http://www.hirth-engines.de/english/index.htm http://www.oregonaircraftdesign.com/forsale2.html http://www.eco-motors.com/Performance.htm http://www.howells-aeroengines.co.uk/D2.html http://www.wilksch.com/ http://www.greatplainsas.com/ http://www.aeroconversions.com/aero_vee_2002.html http://www.vw-engines.com/RG2000.htm http://www.zoche.de/ Just kidding about that last one. Now get back to work.

In terms of stability it's like hanging from a rope in a tree vs riding on a spinning top, or dredel if you will. Not really but close. at least with blades overhead I could bail out and parachute at altitude. You wouldn't want to fall off the first one.

Sure seems to make more sense having the rotors overhead reather than underneath.

I don't really have anything to comment on about Hirth engines, other than Check out this guy!!! http://www.recpower.com/f30pam.jpg http://www.recpower.com/pamgrp.jpg http://www.flying-platform.com/ My first impression is this is crazy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ28wTQoq9w My second impression is this is awesome.

Awesome. Thanks for the link.

Once again I was unclear. The voyager had a propulsion configuration using two differently sized engines. One for economy cruise and the other to assist with takeoff and heavy fuel load flight segment. I am guessing here, but I think probably the IOL-200 drove the rear prop (nearly) the entire time, the 0-240 in the front was eventually shut down, and the front prop was feathered. No belts were involved in the propulsion system that I know of. I suppose there could have been a shaft but not likely, since it would have had to severly interfere with the limited cockpit space. So in insinuating some similarity between that and my crazy idea, I am only referring to the use of one or two engines in the various flight segments, not the use of belts or pulleys.

Oh man, this forum thread is getting out of hand. I am not building anything for a while. I doesn't take any money for me to crunch numbers and use software leftover from college. And to date, I have about 2 hours invested in actual design time, other than reading my Jane's AWA and old engineering books. Some of you have been building or built for 10 years. Give me a break. RV's are starting to look more appealing - no I won't go that far, I take it back. I love airplanes and I wanna be a cozy guy. My supreme dictator says no - with this face: Part of the process as I know it is investigating the state of the art and available technology. That's all I am doing here, is having a discussion. I have crazy ideas. You have actual building experience. The meeting of these things does have me feeling like I am standing on a stage with a broken banjo and no pants. But I am learning. And if I didn't have a sense of humor I wouldn't keep coming back to this thread. So now I'll just slowly back away. you are all right. I was joking the whole time, yeah, that's the ticket. yanking your chain. Trolling. Just go on about your business. Nothing to see here.

Well yeah, if by all you mean 95%.

This is an interesting group of people here. I have noticed this kind of trend on lots of the forum posts I have looked at here. I think it probably has something to do with everyone being a perfectionist. I should make clear that I don't intend to certify anything here, rather use the certification standards as guidelines for something very experimental. I'll do a design, document it, and chances are, it will be a dog for some reason. I would start building a Cozy but my wife is against it. I'll fly my Cessna when the weather is good and I am not in a hurry to get somewhere. I was once trained in the art and science of aircraft design, so I am having fun doing it again (or at least going through the motions) and learning more.

Well I have to use some soft of criteria so I don't kill anyone. I find Mil is useful for guidance too because a lot of the FAR23 statements are akin to "motherhood is good." As far as redesigning for certification - why not do it right the first time? None you say? I beg to differ - Piaggio 180 is FAR 23 certified. That's what we are discussing here, right- Copying the P-180? I suppose we could argue about that being a true canard though. I won't bring up the Starship.

Waited in line for security lately? I can fly at 152 speeds and beat the airlines to some places, like Wichita, Naperville or Omaha. I neglected to mention than fun and experience are also on the mission criteria list. I think OEI climb is a requirement for FAR 23, if it's not I'd definitely like to know that before I jump in and go for a ride. OEI Performance is obviously degraded. I suppose homebuilts don't have to meet FAR 23 but I am not a total idiot, and I would design to meet FAR 23 or MIL specs where FAR23 is too vague. Maybe it won't work. I'd like to see your OEI calculations and engine assumptions for this statement. Otherwise you are stating the obvious and wasting my time. Thanks for this information and your opinion on this. Where do you find information about these not being for 4 cylinder engines?

Span will have to be more than the prop radius, so 36" maybe?. I have seen lots of new ultralight gyrocopters running belts this far. I might need more than two. I have found these: http://www.bydanjohnson.com/articleart/145_1.jpg http://www.geversaircraft.com/ac/propdrive.htm The second has lots of variable geometry which I will be avioding. I would love to find out more about the first image though.

If you have any photos of the full size mock ups or anything I'd like to see that. I haven't got into the details of designing the canopy, I am still thinking about sizing, weight, and power considerations at this stage. However I have some papers from a source knowledgeable of the Piaggio, avtechintl RT-700, and Valkyrie so I am aware the visibility thing is an issue I'll have to deal with. I'd shrug this off by stating that the mission intended here is to go far fast and cheap. Lets say in general I want missions of 1000 nm at 175kts on 60 gals of mogas, that seems reasonable offhand I think. Takeoff performance and landing performance of hopefully well under 2000'. The way I'd intend to use this plane is not for sightseeing. If I want to look out the window to see the trees and lakes I have a 172 that is great for that. That said the Piaggio does have a rather unique fuselage shape. It has no cylindrical profile at any point which makes machining or construction a little more tricky and the Munk effect of the fuselage is -0.32 largest I know of. There is currently a lot of distance from the pilot's line of sight to the nose of the airplane in my CAD file, so that's about right. I'll take suggestions on engines. There are so many to choose from which I like for so many different reasons. I was leaning toward twin rotax until I saw a used VW 1600 cc engine on ebay sell for $50 a couple days ago. (My wife wouldn't let me buy it still) I have idea to get two small twins and locate them in the fuselage rear near the wingbox - landing gear intersection at the rear of the canopy. Belt drive twin props and run one engine out normally for economy cruise. It'd be like having a 8 cylinders and shutting down four cylinders like they do with indy cars nowadays. I can run redundant belts to props, and have added safety of two engines, and two engines for short takeoff or high performance cruise. Messes a lot up with my engine selection and installed weight though, and most of all has to fit there somehow. Haven't really seen it in action other than the Voyager either. Hey that's a Rutan canard! Anyone have any experience with these props? http://www.ivoprop.com/inflightmediummodel.htm What I've read is pretty negative. Seems like a suspiciously cheap and mechanically frail way to incorporate variable pitch. How long have these things been around? Anyone able to share success stories? ciao

Pilot visibility is definitely the biggest problem. Back seat forward visibility is also a biggie - there is none, unless you do like the Valkyrie and fly picthed forward, which adds lots of drag. The Aeriks 200 was slightly pitched forward on the ground but still I don't think you could fly it form the back seat and see where you are going. I haven't drawn the canopy in yet but I an not that far into the design. I don't see how it would be that different than a long EZ. Actually there is more room than that at the current sizing. The goal is to (do what the piaggio does) cruise with the three surfaces trimmed for mimimum induced drag. Thanks for the reply. I have no problem being told it can't be done, and you are probably right. However I have never let that stop me before.

I like the potential of these diesels, and am glad they are an option. That being said, the centurions probably have a higher installed weight. Also Jet Fuel is more dense, therefore fuel economy is at the expense of higher weight and heavier fuel. Jet fuel may be cheaper and easier to come by in the future than 100LL, but fuel prices can change, and likely will to ensure uncle sam still gets his "fair share". I see you guys are in Europe so that is a big difference from in the states. One other thing to point out is that I don't know that these eat standard diesel fuel, but they do burn Jet Fuel or Kerosene using the Diesel Cycle, as opposed to Otto Cycle. The biggest thing I'd consider when choosing my engine is TBO and overhaul cost - well basically lifecycle cost. If these diesels have very high TBO they could very well pay off in the lifecycle, but that remains to be seen. I think it is interesting to hear about Gearbox and FADEC issues. The gearbox is a drawback I have heard of. The FADEC problem I have not heard of and would be a much bigger issue to me if I start hearing about FADEC failures.

So I pulled out my old computer with the Ashlar Cobalt and scaled a Piaggio down to size for a 2 seat tandem, and I have to say I think it's pretty sweet. I'm about ready to do a Class I design on this sucker. I have seen a few aircraft lately using belt pulley reduction instead of reduction gear. That has given me an idea for integration of the engines but that's a topic for another forum thread. I have been looking around in these threads a lot and noticed some previous talk about the piaggio 180 Avanti II. The great thing about the design of this airplane is the way it "synergises" design decisions that have benefits and drawbacks to take advantage. I donlt really want to change it at all, just scale it down to where I can take off and get great preformance with a piston engine or two for under a couple hundred horsepower. I like the look. For the record, the design name I came up with is the "Piccolo"

I am a Scientist, Civil Engineer, and GIS Specialist by day. I probably won't start building until after I get my PE, which I take soon. Mostly I determine floodplain boundaries and do engineering for FEMA in the biggest design firm I know of. In short, FEMA needs something, I do it, and my company makes money. By night (and education) I'm a Physicist and Aerospace Engineer. I have megalomaniacal delusions that I can design and build an airplane, since I designed a couple in college. Since my wife says I can't build yet so I go through the motions of designing aircraft in my basement. I also am a pilot and fly a 172 in the local flying club, so I am living the dream, it's just a long, loud dream that doesn't go very far or fast without a good tailwind. My dream job would involve being Jimmy Buffet I think.

Back to the original question - I looked up flight envelope speeds in Airplane Aerodynamics and Performance, Roskam & Lan 1997. Based on FAR 23 & FAR 25 certified airplanes, the Design Diving speed V_D must satisfy the relationship V_D >= 1.25 Cruise Speed, and must be specified by the designer. I believe V_NE is the same as the dive speed to the design engineer, so if nat chose that speed it probably satisfies that relationship but it on the low end to be conservative for safety reasons. Design limit load factors are also selected by the designer but must meet the following condition for FAR 23 and FAR 25 certification: n_lim_pos = 2.1 + (24,000/(W+10000)) however (FAR 23) n_lim_pos need not be greater than 3.8, n_lim_pos = 4.4 for utility category and n_lim_pos = 6 for acrobatic category. and (FAR 25) n_lim_pos may not be less than 2.5. there are a few other caveats I won;t take the time to write down, but all this has a direct relationship to the V-n diagram. http://www.cozybuilders.org/performance/VN_Normal_2050_SL.html Per FAR 23, V_C is the design cruising speed, which must satisfy the relationship: V_C = k_c SQRT(W/S) where W is the flight design gross weight, or the max design takeoff weight. k_c is a constant, k_c = 33 for normal and utility =category airplanes with wing loadings up to W/S = 20 psf. k_c varies linearly from 33 to 28.6 as the wing loading varies from 20 to 100 psf. V_C also must not exceed 0.9 V_H, where V_H is the max level speed obtained with max power. the V_B is related to the lift curve slope and the wing loading, and is referred to as the gust line. The gust lines are defined by the equation n_lim = 1 +- (K_G* U_de * V * C_L_alpha)/(498(W/S) I'm not going to get into the details here though.

http://www.pdas.com/avd.htm ? They used to be neatly organized on techreports.larc.nasa.gov but now they are harder to find on the Nasa Technical Reports Server.

Today I did a little X/C in the 172 to Newton City/County KS for a $100 burger. Very nice airport, Mogas is $3.00/gal full service. This is the airport where Jim Bede designed and manufactured his jets in the early 70's. I was driving the courtesy car back to the airport when I saw a long-EZ or something like it taxi out and take off. Just thought I'd mention it. Had I been a little more nosy around the airport grounds, I could have met a Canardian. Darn. The cars on I-35 were passing me on the way there - I was as low as 58 kts on the GPS ground speed. Made up for it on the way back, but makes me want to start on my cozy. Man, I'm gonna fly it everywhere, and go fast.

Yes, John is still around and I hear considering bringing back the Valkyrie under LSA rule. I looked up the Valkyrie performance specs in Jane's and from what I could quickly surmise it is not a high speed X/C crusing machine like I am looking for, nor would it be a plans build project. I ran out of change to make copies however so I need to go back to get the exact performance specs - I'll update those here at a later date.

I think I'll plan on Rough River 2008 to immerse myself in canard culture and improve my chances of getting a ride in a cozy. I'll be in a tent under the 1959 Cessna 172 - she's a sweet bird for slow and low. http://www.flyingclubkansascity.org/Aircraft/Cessna172c2.jpg

I also found the Dreamwings Valkyrie and my former professor's company president told me about this: http://www.avtechintl.com/ http://www.ultralightnews.com/airv98/airventure_valkyrie.htm I've spent some time at the Library looking at Janes books lately, getting information on specs and performance. I think I am going to stick with the Cozy for the reputation of the plans and support network. Maybe after I get one homebuilt under my belt then I'll consider taking on a larger design mod project.

I have had a photo of a Cozy on my bulletin board for about a year now. I have thought and researched and looked and learned, and I think a Cozy sounds like the project for me. One bit of research I can't do from books or computer is actually fly a canard aircraft. If there are any in the Kansas City area I would be very interested to inspect your aircraft or go for a ride - I'll contribute or pro rata share or cost + instructor fees as appropriate. I am asking to experience and learn basic canard flying. I plan on Joining the local Olathe EAA chapter at the next meeting, and hope to convince my wife that she should get me a set of Cozy IV plans for my birthday. I wanna be like the cool guys here who I have read their websites about building and flying cozy's and I better get started before I have kids get old and have adult responsibilities. If any of you celebrity canard flyer's happen to be passing through Northeast Kansas shoot me an email or something - it would be an honor!