Cavelamb did you post the Video on the Cygnet?

I was looking at the youtube video of the Cygnet and wondered if it
was you that posted it?

canuck_bob wrote:
I was looking at the youtube video of the Cygnet and wondered if it
was you that posted it?

I posted one. Dunno if it's the one you saw or not.
That's the engine that went into my red and white parasol.

Richard

On Aug 7, 1:34*pm, cavelamb wrote:
canuck_bob wrote:
I was looking at the youtube video of the Cygnet and wondered if it
was you that posted it?

I posted one. *Dunno if it's the one you saw or not.
That's the engine that went into my red and white parasol.

Richard

I am considering the Cygnet as a project.and was wondering what your
thoughts are on the plane, please?

Bob

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
canuck_bob wrote:
I was looking at the youtube video of the Cygnet and wondered if it
was you that posted it?

I posted one. Dunno if it's the one you saw or not.
That's the engine that went into my red and white parasol.

Richard

I lloked and found 2 attributed to you. Looks like a nice little aircraft.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oKee...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvkQT...eature=related

Peter

canuck_bob wrote:
On Aug 7, 1:34 pm, cavelamb wrote:
canuck_bob wrote:
I was looking at the youtube video of the Cygnet and wondered if it
was you that posted it?
I posted one. Dunno if it's the one you saw or not.
That's the engine that went into my red and white parasol.

Richard

I am considering the Cygnet as a project.and was wondering what your
thoughts are on the plane, please?

Bob

It's a very nice little airplane.
Steel tube fuselage, wood wing, slightly swept forward for CG.

The simple fact that it carried two on a VW engine (2180) is impressive
enough, but the builder wanted better climb, so I bought the VW and he
installed a Continental A-65.

With the A-65 in it, it will accelerate and climb way better.
Perky, even!

Richard

Bob

It's a very nice little airplane.
Steel tube fuselage, wood wing, slightly swept forward for CG.

The simple fact that it carried two on a VW engine (2180) is impressive
enough, but the builder wanted better climb, so I bought the VW and he
installed a Continental A-65.

With the A-65 in it, it will accelerate and climb way better.
Perky, even!

Richard

Interesting, I'm considering an A65 because I own one. Thanks for the
info. Is the visibility as good as it seems?

canuck_bob wrote:
Bob
It's a very nice little airplane.
Steel tube fuselage, wood wing, slightly swept forward for CG.

The simple fact that it carried two on a VW engine (2180) is impressive
enough, but the builder wanted better climb, so I bought the VW and he
installed a Continental A-65.

With the A-65 in it, it will accelerate and climb way better.
Perky, even!

Richard

Interesting, I'm considering an A65 because I own one. Thanks for the
info. Is the visibility as good as it seems?

Just the way it looks.
A bit blind aft, with the wing in the way, but comfortable anyway.

I've built and flown several VW powered airplanes.
Contrary to common opinion, I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.
Each time I thought, ok, NOW I know what to do better.

In the end, the full blown 2180 did fly well, but weighed in at
208 pounds (!) But a Rotax 582 could fly circles around it.

We live, we learn.
Hopefully we survive to try again...

I think you would enjoy the Cygnet.
Keep it light and simple.
It would be a fine flying machine.


Richard

Thanks Richard,

I really like the layout and thought for a long term project it would
be a little unique and the plane has a solid record for a strong
airframe.

I'm planning an affordable plane, mild steel tubing except for primary
flight load tubes, locally procured wood and building supplies, etc.
I'm a big guy so I feel I would need more than a VW. They are also
much more expensive to procure here in Canada.

I've looked at the Corvair as a possibility and it has some promise.
It needs modification to add a thrust washer at the prop end and a
fifth bearing to take other prop loads. That starts to get pricey
quickly. I am not fond of the 2 stroke Rotax engines, however the
Yamaha 700cc triple snowmobile engine interests me. Piston seizure
caused by shock cooling and heating seems to be real common on air
cooled 2 strokes in planes. The Yamaha is a triple water cooled
engine. Smooth and the best reliability of any sled engine I've
researched. This is my other choice for an alternative engine. As
much as I like 4 stroke the power to weight advantage of tuned 2
strokes is impressive. First choice is always a small Continental but
every potential repair problem is horribly expensive.

canuck_bob wrote:
Thanks Richard,

I really like the layout and thought for a long term project it would
be a little unique and the plane has a solid record for a strong
airframe.

I'm planning an affordable plane, mild steel tubing except for primary
flight load tubes, locally procured wood and building supplies, etc.
I'm a big guy so I feel I would need more than a VW. They are also
much more expensive to procure here in Canada.

I've looked at the Corvair as a possibility and it has some promise.
It needs modification to add a thrust washer at the prop end and a
fifth bearing to take other prop loads. That starts to get pricey
quickly. I am not fond of the 2 stroke Rotax engines, however the
Yamaha 700cc triple snowmobile engine interests me. Piston seizure
caused by shock cooling and heating seems to be real common on air
cooled 2 strokes in planes. The Yamaha is a triple water cooled
engine. Smooth and the best reliability of any sled engine I've
researched. This is my other choice for an alternative engine. As
much as I like 4 stroke the power to weight advantage of tuned 2
strokes is impressive. First choice is always a small Continental but
every potential repair problem is horribly expensive.

Piston seizures and shock cooling seem to be mostly operator error.
At least that's my opinion - from my own experience.

Having said that, may I point out that the Rotax 582 (and 618) are water cooled.

I am familiar with the Rotax' engines as almost all my meager flight
time is behind either 503 or 582 engines, some 900 series as well.

I agree about the operator error but I like the incredible smoothness
of the triple Yamaha. It would produce a conservative 75 to 80 hp
with 75 ft. lbs of torque at 6800 rpm. It is also very common locally
with lots of highly qualified shops used to mountain tuning.