Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 07:38:55 -0500 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: Runway Length IMHO 4000ft is adequate to fly a canard from. You should consider starting out at the larger field for the initial testing, but after that go the the shorter field. I know of at least 4 canards, including a Velocity that were tested at a 3750' feild and are succesfully flown there today. Paul At 23:48 1/9/00 +0000, willav@att.net wrote: >I have the opportunity to move to a small airport about >15mins from where I live (as opposed to the 1hr trek to >where I currently keep my Cessna 120)however, I am a bit >concerned about the runway length for my Cozy when I get >it finished - hopefully later this year - particularly >while I am getting used to flying it! The airport will >have 4000 ft paved and it's pretty flat though narrow. >The airport is about 1000ft elevation, but the Summer >temps here in Texas can be above 90 for weeks! My Cozy >is the original three place with a 160hp 0-320. I would >typically be flying with myself (180lbs) and a 120lb >passenger. Judging by it's current weight I think it >will end up between 975 - 1000lbs empty weight. > >Obviously having the airport so close would be a great >advantage and incentive to "go flying", but I don't want >to give up what I currently have (5200ft WIDE runway) >and find I am unconfortable operting the plane from a >smaller field. > >Any advice from current operators would, as always, be >very welcome. > >Will > > From: "astrong" Subject: Re: COZY: Runway Length Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 16:57:09 -0800 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 3:48 PM Subject: COZY: Runway Length > Obviously having the airport so close would be a great > advantage and incentive to "go flying", but I don't want > to give up what I currently have (5200ft WIDE runway) > and find I am unconfortable operting the plane from a > smaller field. > > Any advice from current operators would, as always, be > very welcome. > > Will Will, I have been flying my COZY III for 7 years with a 150 LYC. from a 2500`, 50` wide runway 1000 field elev. . I too weigh 180 and the wife 120. for long trips that reguire full gas we take off from a nearby (5 miles) airport with 5000` runway. Alex > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 05:40:45 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: Re: COZY: Runway Length willav@att.net wrote: > Any advice from current operators would, as always, be > very welcome. Will, I used a 4000 Ft runway for years when I was in NC. It was at 1100 Ft. I never had a problem. -- Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:45:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Runway length Was said Subject: COZY: canard stall angle. Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 13:23:22 -0600 Builders, The Roncz canard is not installed at the same angle of incidence in the Cozy Mark IV as in the Long EZ, because the fuselage nose is wider on the Mark IV than on the Long EZ, so it produces more lift, and this lift, because it is ahead of the c.g. is DESTABILIZING. So we install the canard at a greater angle of incidence in the Mark IV so it reaches its maximum angle of attack sooner to offset the destabilizing lift of the fuselage (this is one of the reasons we advise builders not to lengthen the nose, change its shape, or widen the fuselage). In our plans model during our aft c.g. stall testing, we measured the angle of the upper longerons when the canard stalled at approximately 14 degrees, as I recall. It didn't take much more than that to stall out the main wing, and when that happens, the angle increases rapidly. Regards, Nat From: Militch@aol.com Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:27:53 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Leaning? In a message dated Mon, 6 Mar 2000 1:12:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Eric Westland writes: > I have a question about mixture control and leaning limits. Before I > finished my Cozy, I flew rentals where getting above 3,000' MSL was a > rare occurrence as it took so long to do so. Now that I have a plane > that can go plenty high, I was hoping for some feed back on your leaning > procedures. I've read various articles and my Lycoming handbook, but > there does not seem to be any consensus, so while I understand how I can > save fuel and operate lower cht/egt temps if I go past the egt peak > point on the lean side, how far is too far to avoid detonation or other > hazards associated with too lean a mixture? > > BTW, I have a fuel injected Lycoming with the Electoair electronic > ignition, fixed pitch prop and a full engine monitor with egt/cht and > fuel flow. > There is an excellent explanation of leaning at the following web page. It covers all the issues in great detail. You may have to subscribe to AvWeb to get to it, but this should answer any questions you have. http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0018.html Regards, Peter Militch Cozy #740 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:04:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Leaning? I have an Electronics International US-8 Ultimate scanner with 4 EGT/CHT's. THere are alarms on all, and I set the EGT's to 1450F. I lean at all altitudes and power settings, initially to maximum power (maximum RPM), and try to leave it there. If I get a high EGT alarm light, then I richen to bring the temperature to under 1450F. Per my friendly guys at a repair station that specializes in Aerostars, turbos run EGT's higher than 1450F, I selected that number as a conservative number. Saturday at 2500' and 5000' fuel flow was about 10.2 GPM. At 10,000' - 12,000' the flow typically would be around 8 GPM. I hardly recommend EGT/CHT on all cylinders, trouble shooting a fouled plug or clogged injector nozzle simple, have several times pulled only one plug instead of probably several. From: COZYMK4@aol.com Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 00:28:56 EDT Subject: COZY: Pitch trim stability Kevin Funk MD Cozy Mk IV N871F Return-path: From: COZYMK4@aol.com Full-name: COZYMK4 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 13:40:05 EDT Subject: Pitch trim stability To: cozy@extremezone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 109 Nat, I have 32.9 hours now and did 8.5 of them yesterday covering the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico. I love the flying and the performance. I also am having problems with my wife wanting to fly and get her license finished ASAP. At first I thought that is was my piloting technique but I finally realized that there is a negative dynamic pitch trim stability. With 3/4 to 1/4 tanks, 200 # in the front seat and 32.8 pounds of lead ballast (4 coke cans filled with molten lead) in the nose compartment, this puts me in the mid CG range. As I fly stabilized at 2300 or 2500 rpm doing 135 or 150 kts at 7500 and 9500 feet, I find that any disturbance from level gets worse, either up or down. The speed can change 20 kts or more (and 400 feet) with no signs of improving (at least, that I was willing to wait for). This increases work load a lot. The elevator floats at -5 degrees at this CG while in flight, but is at -20 degrees while on the ground. The pitch trim is an Alex Strong, installed per his plans. The only installed difference is baggage pods hanging at 113.9 inches at the strake outboard. I believe that the canard is set at the angle defined in the modified F template. The roll trim was to the left. I have changed trim with one thin washer at a time. There are now one thick washer on right wing top and two thick washers on left wing bottom. This has the trim lever just slightly left versus nearly full left (needed by second flight). Right rudder is trimmed out by 2 degrees (1/4 inch) to put ball centered. Roll is very slightly positive in trim stability. I can put the plane into a 45 degree bank, level, and sit back for 720 degrees of turn. The plane will finish out at 35 degrees of bank. Today, I am going to do 2 flights. The first will be with the baggage pods off. Then I will try forward CG range with 2 cans in the nose (16.4 pounds). Please give me some advice as to what else needs to be checked, changed, or just lived with. Kevin Funk MD Cozy Mk IV (#90) N871F