SAF_Zoom

This may be a stupid question, but is the winglet at the same distance from the centerline or as it been move outward to keep the same wingspan (before the bend... if that makes sence ?).

Thanks Marc, Will it be annouced here, when the date and time are finalized ?

Hi guys, I'm planning my first trip to Oshkosh for this summer and was wondering if there will be a canard forum, and if so, on which day it will be held. I won't be able to make it for the whole week, so this is why I'm asking.

I'll look around then.

That makes for a very sexy wing. I love it when poeple take the time to improve on the design. I can't wait to get some feedback on how it flies. Bravo !!!

Hi it was not meant to discourage you. But you can have 2 partly built VarieEZ for $4,500 on Barnstormer (including the hard to find parts like the wing attach fixture that some sell for $700 to $800) It also includes the canopy (mounted) (maybe what $500), the TerfCD ($300 new), an engine mount (couple of $100), the wheels and brake assembly... etc... As you can appreciate, the cost of material alone is going to be a lot more. And you would still get to be hands on as there is a lot of work still to be done. Just my 2c,

For the price a complete VarieEZ can be bought, I don't think it is worth building one from scratch. Maybe find an uncompleted project with all the hard to find component. Just my 2c,

Are you talking of his turbofan or turboshaft version ?

And we have another winner.....

Yes sir ...........

Guess you never owned a RX-7 or 8... I blew my 13b (in my RX-7) after it had more than 100 000 miles on it. This car was driven hard... hey never shifted until the little needle it 7000 RPM... But yes one rotor did blow... but it still drove on one rotor for more than a WEEK (thats about 50 miles per day) after it blew... So is it reliable yes...

To get back on topic here... Most will agree that a mazda 13b is a proven power plant. Even when in an airplane. Rare are the failure directly link to the engine itself. Most problem that lead to engine problems can be trace back to the accessories (water pump, ignition, redrive, etc.). What the rotary engine needs to be better accepted is standerdized accessories that are proven reliable. Some are on the way (or may already be here as Tmann already mentionned (see RWS)). What makes these engine tricky is that most installations are one of the kind. This leave a lot of room for error. So as long as the accessories are not standerdized... well some will be safer than a Lycoming and some will not. Problem is, you will probably ear more of the ones that are not...

You may be right... I have not contacted them... Just something I hace stored in my favorite...

Nah its in canadian $$$$$

Here is somewhat of a turn key solution for RV guys.. http://powersportaviation.com/

It's also in EAA Sport Aviation

Not the same niche... one's a 2 seater... the other one 4... I'm sure that if a 4 seat Berkut was available from day one (along with the 2 seat version) that the design would still be produce today (either in kit or plan form). Would probably mean that fewer Cozy IV would have been built...

Thanks guys, And one other thing do you guys know what variant (Cosy IV 147" or 141" canard) the CAFE fondation tested.

Hi Lynn, Pardon my ignorance, but when you say "same elevator length as a long ez" do you means that the canard is the same lenth from tip to tip or are you only refering to the actual control surface. If you where not talking about the canard lenght, do you know if they measure up? And if no what are the measurment? Thanks,

Well you preflight your plane as you cannot pull it by the side of the road to check things out... Wait you can ... but its a lot more interesting to get there in one peice

I'm no aerodynamist but with such a canard... would you need to increase the lenght of the fuselage to reduce the plane sensativity to pitch change? And does a full flying canard means that the entire airfoil rotates around a pivit point "a la" Eurofighter Typhoon...

The 912 (79HP/TO81HP) and 914 (100/TO115HP) are nice aviation powerplants... just a bit short on power... for my needs

OK... so how would your design be different then? Don't want to rain on your parade but looks like you will have to do some things different... Unless you are happy with the results Mr. Bowden had. But if you can improve the design to your liking... why not...

Twin you may want to look around on this site (or in the CSA newsletters)... I beleive there was a LE that was built with 2 80hp Jabiru engines. The owner decided to convert back to one because of the observation made previously (not enough power to maintain altitude on one engine)... Here is the link: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10767&highlight=twin

YES but.... They have been done, but no one as reported their effects on the flying (safety) characteristics of the EZ (to my knowledge). I've read in one of the CSA newsletters that… supposedly one of the benefits of stretching the fuselage (aft of the pilot seat) is to make the EZ less sensitive in pitch... But they don't indicate if this mod as any negative effect of the plane inherent resistance to stalls. Many believe (and possibly so) that a longer moment arm could cause the EZ to exceed the critical angle of attack of its main wing and cause it to stall before the canard. This is called a deep stall and not something you would want to experience. On a side note, be prepare to ear… don’t mess with the design or you are going to kill yourself rhetoric, without any useful info other then very basic explanation. It seems that no one that as done the longer/wider LE fuselage mod is willing to share… i) how they did it… and ii) what is the effect of the flying characteristics, if any. It’s kind of sad when instead of enhancing the EZ (making it an even better tandem two passenger seating cross country plane) peoples are just content with solving some of its technical “faults”.