Voidhawk9

That's a pretty rapid erosion. Freezing rain or hail?!

Maybe Titan or Supermarine would sell you one of their LS V8 FWF setups. Heavier than the other options, but similar to a -540, which has been done several times. And WAAAAY better fuel economy than a rotary. Plus, they are common, still in production, reliable, multiple PSRU options, and relatively affordable. They appear to be in use on various types with great success, with little or no modification to the engine. 350-450hp at conservative RPMs.

Another case of 'if it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is'.

Anything more than a modest improvement over existing engines is probably marketing in an attempt to attract investors, nothing more. Still waiting on the Deltahawks to arrive as well! 🙄

In contrast, Aeromomentum is actually building and selling engines and gaining a very good reputation, I will continue watching their new engine developments with interest.

That diesel is a 'dream' for sure. If I'm doing my numbers right, those sfc numbers are twice as good as the best high-efficiency diesels in use today - and I'm talking power generators and huge ship engines, which are much better again than their smaller counterparts!

Congrats on the sale.

It is a neat project, and a shame he won't finish it.

Being so heavily modified, it is a one-off design, and unfortunately therefore essentially worthless until completed and proven. Too much risk.

There are some valuable parts on it, but I don't think it will sell for anything like what he wants.

If you got a project that was complete except for finishing, would you still have 51% of the work to do? 😅

I've never flown in a canard yet, but busy building my own. I really like the look of the design, the easy to follow plans and the performance. Plus, I wanted to build something from scratch, rather than a kit.

Hi Duane! You've been caught by the canard bug too, huh?

If you can, find some builders or fliers in your area. Besides being fun to meet, you'll learn a lot. Maybe one of the people you meet would be able to assist you in inspecting a potential project purchase, too. For a builder, it is reasonably easy to determine quality, but if you are new to all this, it might be more difficult.

A link from 17 years ago can't really be considered reliable.

>One year later<

I corresponded some months ago with a French supplier, and found where you can still buy the same tape, albeit not at 3" (75mm) wide: UD E glass cloth 600 g/m²

Last week I laid up two test pieces to do a relative test between the plans spar tape from ACS, and this 'alternative spar tape'. Photos below.

They are basically identical samples, 3 plies of the plans tape 12" long, and an equivalent weight of alternative tape, which ended up as about 5.5 plies (the half cut full-length, half width).

They were laid up side-by-side (with dams, 3" apart) with the same batch of epoxy. You will see some waviness on the bottom, from the plastic ripples underneath. Both samples have similar ripples.

I cured for 3 days, the last day or so in my hot box to ensure they were thoroughly cured.

The samples are the same size and thickness, to within a small fraction of a millimetre. The alternative sample came out 16% heavier, probably largely a result of retaining the cross-threads (not removable) while the plans sample cross threads were removed per plans.

Then I tried a stress test to see if there was any difference between the two. I clamped 50mm of one end to the bench, then clamped a bucket with various weights to the other end. I didn't measure the weights, only the deflection of each with the same weights applied for a relative comparison.

The alternative sample deflected an average of 51% as much as the plans sample! This really surprised me. HALF the deflection?!

I bent both samples about 120deg (using clamps, too much force required to do by hand and / or didn't want to be that close in case one failed!), neither had any problem with that as far as I can tell (no cracking noises either) except that they did twist a bit, thus the longitudinal cracks in the plans sample.

Any ideas on other tests I could do with basic workshop equipment?

Any ideas why the alternative sample was so much stiffer? I'm thinking maybe the fibre density was higher as the many smaller bundles are held together tightly by the cross-threads.

Anyway, interesting results so far.

That's a really nice looking example, I like the cooling plenums as well. Should be a very fun airplane!

Is this is the SQ2000 referenced in this post, I wonder?

The Cozy spar is not as thick in the middle section, but 2ft longer. Curious, I'd have expected it to be thicker.

2 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

  You should make a couple of extra spars for your southern hemisphere Cozy buddies.  Would make nice Christmas gifts.  🙂

 

That's a short list! Outside of NZ, everywhere is far away, and I am not aware of anyone in NZ right now that would need one. Most builders over here are building aircraft capable of rough-field operation, which is sensible given the rarity of runways over here. I'll just fly high enough to glide to one most of the time.

Yes, it seems a shame to ditch these carefully built jigs, so I hold on to them intact as long as practical. Parts of the fuselage side jig came in useful once I finished the tub, it is presently stored on its side using a side jig with some foam tape on it to protect the glass, and covered with a tarp.

The last couple of months I didn't get much done on the project due to higher priority projects that are now complete.

I learned a new dance move this week. I call it the 'spar jig'.

The supports under the end are a bit different to plans to ensure stiffness of the jig hanging off the end of my slightly short table. Actually probably easier to do it this way anyway, since the long support is the off-cut from the big back panel.

Also slightly visible is my 'cheap little sucker' vacuum system under the bench.  It works great.

I also laid up the crush plate required for installing the Infinity Retracts. Came out nicely. It will be cut in half (lengthwise) and trimmed to fit basically in place of the foam in the front face of the end of the spar.

Was lucky enough to have a couple of canard pilots visit last week (a rare occasion in this part of the world), one of whom had previously worked at Scaled. He declared the quality of my fuselage tub to be very good. That's a good dose of builder motivation right there! 🤓

Sounds like a Long is a perfect candidate, then!

5 years is ambitious, but doable, especially if you get a head start by buying an existing project.

For certain, the canard-building community is quieter than it once was, but there are still many builders out there!
I also planned to build a Long, but after some research and feedback from my wife, switched to a Cozy.

Huh, why is Nate selling his plane?

While I have not yet built a cooling system on my project, it is a subject I have studied a fair amount, as it is one in which you can make good gains, or mess up entirely. Creating a restriction like that is a sure way to the latter end!

I recently read the book "How to build a Car", which is an autobiography of the most successful F1 car designer in history. Mostly it is the story of the cars he designed and built, and it is a great read that I highly recommend.  From the book it is clear that the aerodynamics are very clever indeed, but also that they are strongly focussed on ground effect and working around very defined and strict limitations imposed by the FIA.

So what you see on F1 cars, Indy cars, etc. may or may not apply well to our unrestricted flying machines.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force him to drink.

No pics means 50% discount, right? 🤔

On 1/2/2019 at 8:37 AM, Marc Zeitlin said:

It's certainly exciting - making 45 degree turns when 200 ft. AGL

The best performance was always at best glide (L/D) speed, and with about a 45 degree bank.

2

Steep turns at below 500' (and typically at 200' AGL) are part of PPL training here in New Zealand. Good fun and a bit exciting, for sure. But not specifically related to 'the impossible turn', but rather poor weather / precautionary landing simulation.

Finding that best performance is at best L/D speed (for straight and level, I presume) is interesting. My mind wonders if a little extra speed might help given the loading being applied, but then minimum radius is a consideration too, so that may balance things out. Just off the top of my head!

I haven't any experience in canards yet, but I have done a little testing of this in a couple of other types. A DA-20 can do it with ease from 300'. We always joked that you could glide to your home runway in one of these from ANY location, including x-country flight! 😜 An R200 doesn't seem to be capable of returning to the runway until established downwind, and then only if there is little or no crosswind against you!

Mike Arnold's videos are also a great resource:

The Long-EZ documents in the TERF CD are:

• High-performance rudder (full-length)
• Special Performance Canard (Roncz)
• Lycoming Engine Installation
• Operating Manual
• Plans

As well as a few low-quality photos and a cutaway.

So I'd say you do not need the TERF CD.

In case you haven't seen yet, I recommend watching this if you are planning to build (do it!):