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.

Zoom .... Jack is the one who came up with this design. He has posted his results and the reduction in drag gave him 10+ knots of additional airspeed. Jack did a lot of flight testing/tuft testing and has posted the results (not sure if it's here or on the CA forum.)

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 !!!

Thanks for your replay, but to me, the name of the game is 'homebuilding' rather than 'shopping'. This has to do with the 'educational' purpose of every drawing (no matter the plane) out there.

I know I can buy, but I wanna build. Call me whatever, but I have more time than money. Building from scratch means that I can distribute expenses over time at my will, and above all it means learning.

Anyway, I won't change my point: I wanna build my own Varieze clone, hopefully an Open-Varieze and fly it some day.

Please, don't discourage people this way.

Anyway I appreciate your replay and respect your opinion.

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,

I guess destiny, or who knows, we might call it big corporations, don’t want small guys to play with new technology. Labala told me that he was pressured even with sabotage in an event, until the point that he had to sell his patent.

Are you talking of his turbofan or turboshaft version ?

Actually the bypass valve controls the oil circulating inside the rotors. This allows the engine to warm up faster for emissions reasons. The oil injection is a separate system that lubricates the tip seals. It uses oil from the sump, causing two problems, the oil is slowly depleted and needs refilled more frequently, and the sump oil is generally not designed to burn cleanly eventually causing the seals to stick. Later RX models required a special oil to be used if you didn't want to void the warranty. For our purposes the oil pump can be serviced from a separate reservoir filled with clean burning 2 stroke oil, or the pump can be removed and the 2 stroke oil premixed with the fuel.

And we have another winner.....

I didn't want to get into this but you have stated this several times ..... so I will address it.

 

The Rotary for the street has a valve that controls the cooling oil that is injected into the rotor chamber. In order to meet some of the standards set for American cars, this valve cuts off the flow of this oil until the engine heats up ...... then the oil flows.

 

This causes premature wear on the seals located at the tips/corners of the rotors. This is one of the issues addressed.

 

Tracy estimates a rotary TBO is close to 2000 hrs.

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

To me, the Mazda rotary is NOT a proven power plant.... not by a long shot. The RX-7 twin turbo was at best a 30k mile engine, then it needed full replacement. We are not talking Mazda Miata 4 cylinder reliablilty here. The RX sports cars wear out quick (except for the old low power units of the early and late 80's).

 

Today, the RX-8 is still having major engine issues. They wear out, even in standard street use, much quicker than piston counterparts.

 

Consumer reports shows the reliability on the RX-8 is "poor" in the "Engine Major" category as well as the "Engine Minor" category. These engines wear out fast with low miles and regular street use.

 

I love the rotary concept, and have owned a couple myself. They are just not a strong foundation to start an engine program with. Heck, if Mazda can't get them to be reliable in a 4 door sports car, then what chances do we have in an airplane?

 

Although, 30k miles in a car is still approximately 1000 hours of running time, which may be acceptable to some.

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...

Well, it would have been if they hadn't had a crash in 2005 and, IIRC, gone out of business thereafter. I do not believe that they are selling engines currently. I'm willing to be corrected on this, however, but this is the information I have as of two years ago.

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

Between the Cozy Girrrls and Tracy Crook at Real World Solutions (www.rotaryaviation.com) , I feel that I'm pretty well covered on the subject ....... but I'm always open to another link for research.

 

Uhh ..... on second thought, these guys are wayyyyy over-priced.

Nah its in canadian $$$$$

Here is somewhat of a turn key solution for RV guys..

http://powersportaviation.com/

Wasn't there just an article in, I believe, Kitplanes with regard to an anodized control rod snapping in a Safari helicopter which led to it's demise.

 

The article listed the strength degradation of the various types of aluminum treatments. A real eye opener.

 

I have to read it again (as most of my reading of mags is late at night while on the porcelain throne) but I walked away from the first read with the idea that any of the treatments that we use, including alodine, substantially weakens aluminum.

It's also in EAA Sport Aviation

What is the price of the RV6 or higher kit. There poping out left and right so the price must be market sustainable. A 2 place composite canard kit can't compete with that? Why did the Berkut fail? Was the kit price too high or did it take too long to come to market? Both? Why is Velocity viable and berkut was not?

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.

Mine is very close to an Eracer, a bit wider and taller canopy. powered by IO360 angle valve, 200 HP model, at 8500 ft density altitude it does 200KTS GPS ground speed done on a triangle coarse with the engine at 2850 RPM. all E racers are build with the Roncz canard with the same elevator length as a long ez. the wing is the same as the long ez but the wing and center section spar cap layup thickness is increased by 25%. my gross is tested to 2200 lbs. with hydraulic pump and battery in the nose there is no need for balast with a 150 lbs pilot to 420 lb front seat load.

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,

i am starting to have a different view on some of the aviation "totems" ;-) preflight check being one of those.

 

do you "preride" your car every morning before going to work? and i bet in many cases it was parked in the street, where anyone can sabotage your brakes or unbolt a wheel. i bet i could paint a cross on the right side of your car and you wouldnt notice it until someone told you :-D.

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

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)...

 

If you were to have red this thread from the beginning, you would have noticed that I have commented on Bowden's LE a couple of times.

 

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

j hinchliffe said:

Couple of dumb newb questions,

When the fuse is stretched by six inches, does the canard move six inches forward in relation to the main wing? Have any flown with this mod?

Also, with regard to widening the fuse, do the bulkhead layups stay stock thickness or are there any extra layers added?

John

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”.