If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Dave S explained on 5/4/2008 :
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 Dave I don't need varying degrees of success. I guess as the Capt said if you want to tinker, maintain and build, then go EXP. Maybe my next assessment is Mooney vs. ??? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Linton wrote:
Dave S explained on 5/4/2008 : 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 Dave I don't need varying degrees of success. I guess as the Capt said if you want to tinker, maintain and build, then go EXP. Maybe my next assessment is Mooney vs. ??? Cirrus, Cessna (Columbia), Piper, and of course, Beechcraft. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Morgans wrote:
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. The inefficiency is derived from the long, shallow "combustion chamber" formed by the rotor at its top dead center. Flame front progression is slow to advance, resulting in slightly incomplete combustion, and results in more heat going out the pipe, rather than being turned into motion. I would hope that I know this. I've built a rotary and had it running on an airframe, alas not without problems (not with the rotary itself, but part of a builders learning curve) Dave |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
"Dave S" wrote I would hope that I know this. I've built a rotary and had it running on an airframe, alas not without problems (not with the rotary itself, but part of a builders learning curve) Then you are well aware of the problem of dealing with all of the excess heat the rotary produces. I am not an anti auto engine person; far from it. I like some of the things the rotary brings to the table, in fact. I am not sure that I would want to have to deal with the problems, though some, including you, have been willing to. -- Jim in NC |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
"Morgans" wrote in message
... "Dave S" wrote I would hope that I know this. I've built a rotary and had it running on an airframe, alas not without problems (not with the rotary itself, but part of a builders learning curve) Then you are well aware of the problem of dealing with all of the excess heat the rotary produces. I am not an anti auto engine person; far from it. I like some of the things the rotary brings to the table, in fact. I am not sure that I would want to have to deal with the problems, though some, including you, have been willing to. -- Jim in NC That does sum it up. The rotaries just take a lot more dedication that I'll ever have. Peter |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
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 $$$ come out the same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet. We were unable to post your message If you believe this is an error, please contact Google Support. On May 12, 6:12 am, jsbougher wrote: test, can't seem to post as get error from Google On May 3, 9:35 am, Linton Yarbrough wrote: I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ 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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Google sucks and won't let me post remainder of story. If you're
interested, let me know and I can e-mail. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canard or Mooney | Linton Yarbrough | Piloting | 18 | May 21st 08 09:54 PM |
Aircraft ID? canard biz plane | Ron Hardin | General Aviation | 5 | October 1st 06 09:55 PM |
Canard Rotor/Wing | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 0 | December 14th 03 04:39 AM |
Dumb Canard Question. | Russell Kent | Home Built | 39 | October 19th 03 03:25 PM |
Question - Regarding Canard Pushers... | Tilt | Home Built | 33 | August 10th 03 11:07 AM |