Canard or Mooney

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?

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, 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?

not necessarily.
you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design
and flown it.
aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent.

Stealth Pilot

On Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:53 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, 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?

not necessarily.
you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design
and flown it.
aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent.

Stealth Pilot

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?

"Linton Yarbrough" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:53 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, 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?

not necessarily.
you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design
and flown it.
aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent.

Stealth Pilot

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?

I dunno. For an assortment of reasons, I have not been hanging around the
local airport for the past couple of years. But the one builder that I knew
who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up and
switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was unsuccessful
at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without problems.

The only recommendations that I can make are to look/ask on
rec.aviation.homebuilt and also on the canard forum. (I have forgoten what
the canard forum is really called and/or where it is located, but someone on
R.A.H will be sure to know.)

Peter

Linton Yarbrough 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?

The Cozy and the velocity were designed and intended to be used with a
"certified" horizontally opposed air cooled engine. Some enterprising
experimenters have used the rotary/wankel engine, with varying degrees
of success.

Dave

Peter Dohm wrote:
But the one builder that I knew
who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up and
switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was unsuccessful
at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without problems.

That was Buly Aliev.. He was ready to FLY not to keep troubleshooting.
Cooling is a critical issue in a pusher, and you have to make changes
from stock cowling to really cool a wankel properly

John Slade has been flying his for 2 years or so, and while not perfect
is doing pretty good. www.canardaviation.com is his page. There is a
forum to be linked to from there as well.

Another forum, run by Jon Matcho (building, not flying) is Canardzone at
www.canardzone.com

If you are truly interested in rotary engines, check out Tracy Crook's
website, at www.rotaryaviation.com. There are two rotary listservs...

One is moderated and EDITED by Paul Lamar, an afficianado engineer who
has not yet built nor flown a rotary powered aircraft, and tends to be
more theory than practice, but highly technical at times. I unsubscribed
from his list years ago and haven't missed much; folks who disagree with
his findings are summarily dismissed.

The other is The FlyRotary listserv where you will find the majority of
folks who are building or have successfully started and flown homebuilt
rotary aircraft. www.flyrotary.com All are welcome. Webbased archives
available.

Dave

"Dave S" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:
But the one builder that I knew
who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up
and switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was
unsuccessful at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without
problems.

That was Buly Aliev.. He was ready to FLY not to keep troubleshooting.
Cooling is a critical issue in a pusher, and you have to make changes from
stock cowling to really cool a wankel properly

John Slade has been flying his for 2 years or so, and while not perfect is
doing pretty good. www.canardaviation.com is his page. There is a forum to
be linked to from there as well.

Another forum, run by Jon Matcho (building, not flying) is Canardzone at
www.canardzone.com

If you are truly interested in rotary engines, check out Tracy Crook's
website, at www.rotaryaviation.com. There are two rotary listservs...

One is moderated and EDITED by Paul Lamar, an afficianado engineer who has
not yet built nor flown a rotary powered aircraft, and tends to be more
theory than practice, but highly technical at times. I unsubscribed from
his list years ago and haven't missed much; folks who disagree with his
findings are summarily dismissed.

The other is The FlyRotary listserv where you will find the majority of
folks who are building or have successfully started and flown homebuilt
rotary aircraft. www.flyrotary.com All are welcome. Webbased archives
available.

Dave

Yes, that's true; www.canardaviation.com snd www.canardzone.com are the
sites I was thinking of.

Peter

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.

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