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

[Linton Yarbrough]

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?

[Peter Dohm]

"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

[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

[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

[Newps]

>
> 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.

[Dave S]

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[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.

[Dave S]

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"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

[Peter Dohm]

"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

[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.

[Linton Yarbrough]

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 :(

[Linton Yarbrough]

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.

[Gezellig]

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?

[Linton Yarbrough]

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.