Canard or Mooney

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.

jsbougher wrote:
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.


That's sort of spooky. You have a Google ghost.

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

On Tue, 06 May 2008 08:10:50 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

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.

Good list, thanks.

On Tue, 06 May 2008 16:12:20 -0500, Dave S wrote:

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

Did you end up dumping or keeping therotary?

On Tue, 6 May 2008 23:11:56 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

"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

I have a great pair of rotary mechs for /autos/, not sure that
translates well into aircraft.