Firefly-YCTTSFM

Just came across an article in AvWeek (Nov 30, 09 issue) that said the latest Lycoming IO-390 engine variant was now certified. It's described as a replacement of the IO-360 series, specifically on older Mooney aircraft. I hadn't heard of this engine before. Quick internet results say that a new one runs roughly $33,000.00, 210 HP, 308 lb dry weight. Roughly 10% higher fuel burn than a IO-360, 7-28 lbs heaver, but 10-30 more HP. At first glance it would seem like a way to get more HP into a Cozy without going the rotary, diesel, or 6-cylinder routes. Just out of curiousity, has anyone looked at these?

... Yes, I didn't mean to imply anything negative for this particular idea... like I said I hope it works out.

I tend to agree with Marc: it's sounds really interesting, but without data it's not worth the electrons we're posting with. And engineering "data" are more than numbers: it's good procedures, objective measurements, repeatable results, etc. I'm all for innovation and hope it works out, but then again I'm the type that'll listen to a sales pitch and suddenly start to realise it's a little far-fetched/too good to be true... then listen some more and realize there must be a catch ... listen some more and the BS alarm starts going off ... and keep listening to wild claims and nodding my head long after I've decided not to spend money on it simply because I know that there's going to be an absolutely spectacular train-wreck of a gotcha and want to hear it first hand.

Waiter, if you don't mind me asking, how did you maintain currency during the 4 1/2 years of the rebuild? Also, did you do any specific proficency "warm-up" to prepare for flight test (borrow a RV-8 for a few hours?). PS everybody: I've already heard the "you'll save lots of currency not flying" joke...

Spooky... I just picked up a Rutan book at the library, came across the Catbird and got online to find out more about it...

I'll hit the softball, so others can do the hard part: "It'll vary from plane to plane based on empty CG, ballast, fuel, and other payload." My opinion: posts here imply that O-320 EZ's tend to be near the aft-end of the CG limit and often require ballast in the nose. Based on numbers from my terribly out of date manual, I would think the limiting factor to the heavy pilot would be the gross weight (or the fuselage width), not the CG. Lighter pilots on the other hand might need a lot of ballast. Caveat: the weight & CG limits for first flight are much tighter. I can see where a heavy pilot in a lop-sided airplane can run into trouble trying to make first flight. But do the math and see what you get.

Wow... I'd have *never* thought that 2 inches would've made such a difference. I can understand the cowling / prop spacing being important, but it's not like you had a particularly ugly trailing edge. Thanks for the info!

Waiter, when you're not busy (ha!) could you post a pic of that?

If you're ever near central Illinois, I highly recommend stopping by Marshall County Airport (C75) in Lacon, IL. Their annual Father's Day breakfast is coming up and makes a nice change of pace if you're sick of hundred dollar hamburgers. Sunday, June 21, 7:00 am - 12:00 pm Pancake - Waffle - Sausage Breakfast Donations: Adults $5.00 Children $3.00 Under 6 Free Static displays Free Aviation Safety Seminar, Monday 7:00 pm Bring your own tie-downs.

then we're all in the forum for the wrong kind of airplane...

Anybody know the pair of canards flying over Troy, IL (NE of St. Louis) @ 5:00 pm today? Engine noise seemed louder, and kind of distinctive. Rotary maybe? I ask because 1) It's the first time I've seen one (let alone two) in flight 2) I got to point it out to my kids, who thought they looked neat 3) My wife, who's been lukewarm to the whole home-built idea, commented on how fast they were. Anyway, thanks for the experience.

I have never built an aircraft or even sat in a LongEZ... (fellow n00b disclaimer). I briefly thought about this also (then after guidance from the more experienced posters, did more research & ran screaming from the idea). http://canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4493 Canard designs are very sensitive to cg and aerodynamic center changes (more so than conventional aircraft). If the changes to static balance don't scare you, try looking at the dynamic effects. The current design has known characteristics on a good range of weight/CG. You need to evaluate whether it's worth a few inches to risk (at least) sacrificing some of that range. Extra baggage room / legroom may not do much if you can't carry both fuel and passengers... or need to shift ballast around ... or effect the handling qualities of the aircraft. That's real aero-engineering stuff and for me involved more effort/risk than was remotely worth it. I suggest that if you have to ask this question, you need more research before you make the decision. 1) By shifting the cg forward you put more load on the nose gear. Questions you need to ask are: Can it structurally handle it? Do you have enough canard lift to rotate the nose on takeoff? Answer the previous 2 questions for the entire range of weight/CG. 2) How will you change the structure to support the main landing gear? How will this affect the CG? I disliked the "grazing" aspect of this aircraft when I first looked at it, but like most things on the aircraft, I've since come to appreciate the simplicity.

I think I just found my new catchphrase Wonder how many times I can fit that into conversation tomorrow at work?

End of pg 13 - missing the last part of the sentence "However, because of possible prop damage, avoid gravel or fields with loose rocks." Looks very nice, it's great to have one that you can do text searches on.

Just as a general point, correlation does not *necessarily* mean causation. You can see trends in statistics, but rarely the whole story. My favorite: a chart "proving" that a lack of pirates cause global warming. http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/