zolotiyeruki

Today on Facebook:

What kind of modifications did you have in mind? (I'm not an aeronautical engineer, just curious)

And a Quickie Q2:

Another Velocity:

Seen on Facebook today:

Looks like a pretty complete kit:

On Facebook last night:

A couple days ago:

Also today:

There's also this Dragonfly posted a week ago: The photos don't include the wings for some reason

On Barnstormers:

This one does not have pictures:

I haven't seen this one posted, and apologize if it's already shown up: https://barnstormers.com/classified-1556145-Long-Eze-unfinished-Project.html

A Rotax 915 might be a better option, with 150-ish horsepower. With a pusher, you have to be careful of prop strikes if you move the engine further from the firewall, as Kent mentioned. Tractor aircraft don't get off easy, either--you have to account for the impact of a longer nose on the aerodynamic stability of your airplane, too. It's probably better to try and manage the cg with a lighter engine by moving avionics and such aft as much as possible.

(disclaimer: I'm not a pilot nor a builder.....yet. That said, I've been doing a lot of research) With regards to range and fuel efficiency, here are a few thoughts: 1) In general, lower speed = longer range at the expense of time. According to cozyaircraft.com, running at 40% power and 185MPH instead of 75% power and 220MPH will net you a whopping 30% increase in range (from 1,000 miles to 1,300), assuming no head or tail winds 2) In general, higher altitude = higher speed, at the expense of oxygen, cold temperatures, and reduced engine power (unless turbocharged) 3) Turbines are thirsty, thirsty engines. Fast, sure, but very, very thirsty. In a plane the size of a Cozy, you want piston power. 4) Aircraft diesel engines are promising, but also very, very expensive at this time. ac-aero has their Falcon FL200 that's supposedly 75KG and 210(!) HP, but its BFSC of >.39 will probably erase all the range advantages of a diesel. Continental has a whole lineup of diesel engines, but again, $$$$, and they're heavy. 5) Further on the diesel engines, the CD-300 weighs a whopping 550 lbs dry, and would push your empty weight to 1300lbs. That leaves you only 340kg for passengers, bags, and fuel. The stock fuel tanks hold 150kg. If you, your passenger, and your bags consume another 170kg, you'll end up with only 20kg of extra fuel before you hit Max Gross. Fast is nice, but you pay for it three times: first when you buy the engine, second when you can't carry as much fuel because of the engine weight, and third with the higher fuel consumption to go faster.

All these projects make me envious, wishing I had time to pick one up. If you don't mind me asking, how much did you pay for it?

If/when the day comes that I get to build my own airplane, a rotisserie like that is DEFINITELY in the plans. I can imagine there are a LOT of layups that would be a lot easier that way.

Wow, that's a pretty high stall speed for a conventional layout. Any idea how much they were looking to get in a buyout?

Yeah, I'd love to have a fast airplane with the engine and wings behind me, but there aren't many of those. The closest I've found is Ion Aircraft, and 1) the company is getting sold off (they couldn't get into production) and 2) I don't know how fast it actually goes (there's not much detail on the site).

Wow, that's pretty definitive. Too bad he never published plans for the boomerang Does that extend to the plans themselves (i.e. the contents of the TERF CD)?