Canard or Mooney

[Linton Yarbrough]

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?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

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

[Dave S]

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 S]

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

[Gezellig[_2_]]

on 5/4/2008, Peter Dohm supposed :
>>> 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

Lint, my ex-brother-in-law has a Cozy IV and it is a super flight. He
bought his already built and has never had a problem except with the
front nose gear. The faster LD speeds! I think the Cozys are for those
who want to build, the Mooneys for those who don't care to.

[clint]

a Ruski!
Dave S has brought this to us :
> That was Buly Aliev..

[Peter Dohm]

"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

[Peter Dohm]

> Dave S has brought this to us :
>> That was Buly Aliev..
>

"clint" > wrote in message ...
>a Ruski!
>

Not exactly, but trivial. OTOH, he is/was a contributor to the fuel price
watch system which does seem important...

Peter

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gezellig" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Lint, my ex-brother-in-law has a Cozy IV and it is a super flight. He
> bought his already built and has never had a problem except with the front
> nose gear. The faster LD speeds! I think the Cozys are for those who want
> to build, the Mooneys for those who don't care to.
>


Bingo
--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Linton]

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. ???

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[jsbougher]

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?

[jsbougher]

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?

[jsbougher]

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

[jsbougher]

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

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[jsbougher]

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.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

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.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:46:51 -0400, Linton Yarbrough wrote:

> On Mon, 05 May 2008 03:26:33 -0400, Gezellig 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?
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Lint, my ex-brother-in-law has a Cozy IV and it is a super flight. He
>> bought his already built and has never had a problem except with the
>> front nose gear. The faster LD speeds! I think the Cozys are for those
>> who want to build, the Mooneys for those who don't care to.
>
> Gazelle, this may be the answer. Even with a Lycoming, I see Jeff's
> point about the annual; I am left confused in this, can I expect to get
> an annual on a Cozy/Velocity type canard without having to do anything
> myself?

Find another Cozy/Velocity owner and pay them?