Canard or Mooney

Newps wrote:


To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone
else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to
the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good?


How can a Wankel be good? Terrible fuel economy.

A turbocharged rotary engine runs about 0.50- 0.55 Lbs/hp/hr BSFC
A normally aspirated rotary engine runs about 0.45-0.50 lbs/hp/hr BSFC

An air cooled lycoming runs 0.40-0.45 lbs/hp/hr BSFC when run LEAN OF PEAK.

The rotary can use auto gas (including ethanol as an oxygenate) as well
as the blue 100LL. The lycoming for the most part can only use 100LL,
unless in experimental, or you can guarantee the mogas is alcohol free.

The rotary is SLIGHTLY less fuel efficient than a normally aspirated
lycoming engine when the lyc is tuned properly and run LOP. Being able
to use car gas in a rotary obliterates any cost penalty on that marginal
fuel economy issue.

Cost per mile is cheaper in the rotary. And it can be rebuilt for less
than the cost of ONE new lycoming jug, or replaced for the cost of 3 new
jugs.

Do the math yourself and you will see.

Not so terrible now, is it?
Dave

"Dave S" wrote

The rotary is SLIGHTLY less fuel efficient than a normally aspirated lycoming
engine when the lyc is tuned properly and run LOP. Being able to use car gas
in a rotary obliterates any cost penalty on that marginal fuel economy issue.

Cost per mile is cheaper in the rotary. And it can be rebuilt for less than
the cost of ONE new lycoming jug, or replaced for the cost of 3 new jugs.

Do the math yourself and you will see.

Not so terrible now, is it?

Not so bad, if you can figure out how to keep the oil and water cool enough, and
keep the exhaust pipes from melting, and radiating all of the heat to the
cowling. (which if it fiberglass, will tend to make it get soft as play-dough)

Hint: almost all of the lost fuel economy is lost in the form of lots of heat
radiating from the engine, mainly the exhaust gasses.
--
Jim in NC

test, can't seem to post as get error from Google


On May 3, 9:35 am, Linton Yarbrough wrote:
I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling
anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the
same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble
getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing
something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase?

The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.

We were unable to post your message

If you believe this is an error, please contact Google Support.
On May 12, 6:12 am, jsbougher wrote:
test, can't seem to post as get error from Google

On May 3, 9:35 am, Linton Yarbrough wrote:

I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling
anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the
same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble
getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing
something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase?

Comments from a Velocity owner and aeronautical engineer who also
didn't have time to build, so bought instead. Additional comment is
that my Dad has a Mooney 201 that I've flown quite a bit so I think
I'm fairly well placed to at least comment on your question.

For me, there were a few big drivers for the Velocity.
1) Stall characteristics - I can pull the throttle, slow to stall
speed, roll into a 45 degree bank and pull the stick to my stomach and
nothing happens. I know this isn't an issue for "good" pilots, but
the records are littered with stall/spins. I'm human and make
mistakes. Whether rational or not, the stall/spin is one of my
biggest fears.
2) Maintenance / avionics - with a homebuilt, I can do everything
myself outside of the "annual". This has helped with the nuisance
issues, but I still use the local A&P for a lot of work.
Additionally, I have access to cutting edge development that is too
expensive or simply not available to certified aircraft. Example is
my Trutrak 2 axis autopilot / ADI. I absolutely love it and my Dad
can't put it in his Mooney without a LOT of effort if at all.
3) Factory support / aircraft complexity - factory support may not be
as good as Mooney, but in the experimental world the ability to get
factory check out and factory annual is a big deal. Also note that
the Velocity can perform extremely well as a VERY simple airplane. My
plane is fixed prop, fixed gear and keeps us with a 201. My plane is
more basic from a maintenance perspective than a Cessna 172 and was it
a simple transition from that plane.
4) Useful load - I can put myself, my wife, both kids, the dog and a
weekends worth of luggage into it and still easily cover 300-400
miles.

Jeff

On Mon, 12 May 2008 06:18:20 -0700 (PDT), jsbougher wrote:

For me, there were a few big drivers for the Velocity.
1) Stall characteristics - I can pull the throttle, slow to stall
speed, roll into a 45 degree bank and pull the stick to my stomach and
nothing happens. I know this isn't an issue for "good" pilots, but
the records are littered with stall/spins. I'm human and make
mistakes. Whether rational or not, the stall/spin is one of my
biggest fears.

Fair statement.

2) Maintenance / avionics - with a homebuilt, I can do everything
myself outside of the "annual". This has helped with the nuisance
issues, but I still use the local A&P for a lot of work.
Additionally, I have access to cutting edge development that is too
expensive or simply not available to certified aircraft. Example is
my Trutrak 2 axis autopilot / ADI. I absolutely love it and my Dad
can't put it in his Mooney without a LOT of effort if at all.

Hadn't thought of this one.

3) Factory support / aircraft complexity - factory support may not be
as good as Mooney, but in the experimental world the ability to get
factory check out and factory annual is a big deal. Also note that
the Velocity can perform extremely well as a VERY simple airplane. My
plane is fixed prop, fixed gear and keeps us with a 201. My plane is
more basic from a maintenance perspective than a Cessna 172 and was it
a simple transition from that plane.
4) Useful load - I can put myself, my wife, both kids, the dog and a
weekends worth of luggage into it and still easily cover 300-400
miles.

Jeff

All of these work for me except the dog. I'm married to one, Sweet
Vicki. Don't need another

Google sucks and won't let me post remainder of story. If you're
interested, let me know and I can e-mail.

jsbougher wrote:
Google sucks and won't let me post remainder of story. If you're
interested, let me know and I can e-mail.

It let you post 4 times in 10 minutes.

On May 12, 7:25 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
jsbougher wrote:
Google sucks and won't let me post remainder of story. If you're
interested, let me know and I can e-mail.

It let you post 4 times in 10 minutes.

Yup, and not a single one is what I had in the message window.