From: "Kevin Russert Walsh" Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 17:00:00 +0000 Subject: Info Pack Questions I just got my info pack in the mail, and before I actually become a plans owner, I have a few basic questions. Sorry if these are repeats: 1) Is there anybody out there flying a Cozy right now that doesn't like that fact that the pilot in command (typ. left seat) has to fly left handed? It would seem rather awkward to me. I guess that setting up the right seat as the pilot seat (reverse the instruments etc.) would be possible? 2) There is a mention about rain getting into the cockpit when in the grazing stance. Are the cockpit seams that hard to get a good seal? What about a rubber seal like a car door? One step further what about an inflatable seal (standard industry seals are inflatable)? 3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about 25K. This seems a bit dubious. Of those that have finished theirs, what did it cost in round numbers (If I dare ask...) Thanks, and once again sorry for the basic questions. Kevin R. Walsh Mechanical Engineer Intelligent Automation Systems 149 Sidney Street Cambridge, MA 02139 TEL 617.354.3830 FAX 617.547.9727 From: "Dewey Davis" Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:51:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Info Pack Questions On Jan 10, 17:00, Kevin Russert Walsh wrote: > Subject: Info Pack Questions > 1) Is there anybody out there flying a Cozy right now that doesn't > like that fact that the pilot in command (typ. left seat) has to fly > left handed? It would seem rather awkward to me. > I guess that setting up the right seat as the pilot seat (reverse the > instruments etc.) would be possible? > I don't think you will find this to be a problem at all. I got used to it in about 5 minutes. If you think about how you typically fly a spamcan, left hand on yoke and right hand on throttle, you might find the left stick more natural than you imagine. I have talked to dozens of Cozy pilots and none have had the slightest problem with a left stick. I like it better than a right stick because it frees the right hand for writing, radio tuning, etc. 2) There is a mention about rain getting into the cockpit when in the > grazing stance. Are the cockpit seams that hard to get a good seal? > What about a rubber seal like a car door? One step further what > about an inflatable seal (standard industry seals are inflatable)? A simple rubber seal works for me. I don't have any leaks in the rain. > > 3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about > 25K. This seems a bit dubious. Of those that have finished theirs, > what did it cost in round numbers (If I dare ask...) > Its a real airplane. It will probably cost more than $25k to build. $35k is more realistic. But there isn't anything else you can build in this class that would be less expensive. A Cozy is definitely a good choice if cost is a big factor in your decision. Dewey Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 17:29:03 -0700 From: Pilot@sisna.com (Dave Chapman) Subject: re. info pack questions Kevin R. Walsh asks, >1) Is there anybody out there flying a Cozy right now that doesn't >like that fact that the pilot in command (typ. left seat) has to fly >left handed? It would seem rather awkward to me. I agree, after flying the F-16 for almost 1000 hours, my left hand is for the throttle only! I am setting my cozy up to fly from the right seat and other than arranging the instruments on the right there is no modification required. >2) There is a mention about rain getting into the cockpit when in the >grazing stance. Are the cockpit seams that hard to get a good seal? No, its not difficult to get a good seal, but why would anyone want to park their creation outside in the rain??? >3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about >25K. This seems a bit dubious. My plane will end up costing around $15,500 (give or take a grand). I did buy a used engine and that is included in the cost as well as all the instruments. The good news is that with the cozy you can pay as you go unlike a kit where they want the entire $25 to $75 grand (less engine/instruments) up front. Hope this helps, Fly safe, Dave Chapman (Pilot@sisna.com) "Man's flight through life USHGA #5742 is sustained by the power Park City, Utah of his knowledge" (801) 647-0319 Cozy 3 on gear, with the engine on, in other words, 80% done and 80% to go... ***************************************************************************** Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:02:07 -0600 From: tims@enet.net (Tim Sullivan) Subject: Re: Info Pack Questions >I just got my info pack in the mail, and before I actually become a >plans owner, I have a few basic questions. Sorry if these are >repeats: > >1) Is there anybody out there flying a Cozy right now that doesn't >like that fact that the pilot in command (typ. left seat) has to fly >left handed? It would seem rather awkward to me. >I guess that setting up the right seat as the pilot seat (reverse the >instruments etc.) would be possible? I'm left handed but learned to fly the Super Cub using the right. I asked Nat about this last year he said that it would be no problem to switch. You would have to reverse the hinge location on the canopy and the panel inst. but otherwise the rest is the same. Tim Sullivan (tims@enet.net) Phoenix, AZ | * | Cozy MK IV Builder #470 |-----(/)-----| The journey begins 8/10/95 / \ Current Status: Ch 7 o o Date: Fri, 12 Jan 96 09:34:47 EST From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: Re: re. info pack questions The questions that you ask are not nearly as bad as the answers you seem to get. So here is my opinion for what it is worth. With reference to left handed flying: The present convention in certified airplanes is to use your left hand on the Yoke and the right hand on the throttle, unless you are a flight instructor. The Cozy is also set up for this convention. The controls in the Cozy are so natural and comfortable that even though I had no time in a Cozy, I did not even notice the difference in the controls(wrist stick) on the first test flight after the aerodynamic feel of the airplane became active on lift off. Changing the instruments to the right side of the airplane and flying with the right hand would mean a reversed layout of the instrument panel and for IFR this might not be as straight forward as it seems, also the pilot would be required to enter the airplane first or be forced to climb over the passenger. The safety latches and canopy locks are on the left side and in a emergency the pilot needs quick access to them. There are other considerations also. Changes like this should be considered carefully. Leaks around the canopy can be a problem if the seals are not properly maintained, Most COZYs leak water around the canard torque tubes more than they do around the canopy. This is because of the drainage pattern in the nose down position. My airplane is nine years old and is parked outside. At home I have a very heavy Herculon cover that covers the complete fuselage strakes, and canard fuselage juncture area. Away from home base I have a lighter cover. I have never had leaks in flight, even in heavy rain. Date: 12 Jan 96 10:38:45 EST From: Roger/Cindy Shell <103117.51@compuserve.com> Subject: Right-hand flying I agree with Dave Chapman. I flew the F-16 also, and being right-handed I found the stick on the right to be very natural. When I bought my plans, I asked Nat about the idea of configuring the airplane for the pilot on the right, and he was against it, but didn't elaborate why. I've thought about it since from a safety point of view and considered these two points: 1) Standard traffic pattern is left hand turns, so visibility for clearing toward traffic may be obscured if you're sitting on the right as you look around a passenger, left headrest, left side of fuselage etc. 2) As someone else mentioned, if you're right-handed, flying on the right side, you'll have to use your left hand to write, change a CD,etc unless you decide to fly cross-handed for awhile or take your hand off the stick. If you're left-handed it will probably be more natural to "stick" with the left side anyway. Again, as a righty, I would prefer to do the flying like I did in the Viper, and I'm all for breaking convention as long as it's safe. Any data from those flying now about clearing from the right side? Roger Shell N357CZ Chapter 13 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 10:39:56 -0600 From: Scott Mandel Subject: Stick Position I consider myself a low time pilot (still under 2000 hours). I've flown lots of planes with sticks, mostly right handed, and lots of planes with yokes, mostly left handed, and found little difference. The only thing that seems to be different is relative placement to my body. (It felt allot different if the stick was mounted on the side than in the center.) I have found it quite different in a side-by-side airplane flying on the right side. My wife is also a pilot and when we fly together she prefers the left seat (big suprise :-) ). It usually takes time to adjust from right seat to left seat and I find that this is a harder transition for me than right stick to left stick. I'm not knocking anyone else's opinion I'm just adding my $.02. _________________ ______________________ / Scott L. Mandel \ /Email: mandel@esy.com \ \_________________/_________________________\______________________/ | \\|// Hydrographic Source Assessment System (HYSAS) \ | (o o) \_______ \_o00o~(_)~o00o______________ Email: scott_mandel@qmailgw.esy.com \ / E-System Garland Division \ | | 1200 S. Jupiter Road ||---(X)---| Voice: 1-214-205-8762 | | Garland, Tx. 75042 | o/o\o Chap 8 Fax: 1-214-205-6012 | \___________________________/______________________________________/ Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 17:49:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re: Info Pack Questions Kevin, I noticed several replies to your other questions but thought I would throw in my experience on number 3. I suspect I will come in over $25,000 -- possibly many thousands more. The real question is the engine/avionics cost. The airframe can be built on a series of small investments over time. Buying as you build tends to cost a bit more (prices go up) but does make it easier to come up with the dollars. I imagine Nat Puffers costs are accurate based on an authorized suppliers costs for the basic airframe. I found that I had to buy extra to cover ruined parts. Its also handy to have extra hardware/glass/epoxy/whatever handy just in case you need it. Wicks and AS&S do not give this stuff away - just a little extra cost big bucks. A hidden expense is related to tools. You can get by without a complete shop but the more tools and power equipment you have the easier things will go. Again, this is not a large outlay on day one of the project. I've bought some good equipment and some serviceable stuff over time till I now have a pretty complete shop. When you finish, however, you still have the tools for home improvement and other projects. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Info Pack Questions Author: kevin@slider.ias.com at INTERNET Date: 1/10/96 8:22 PM 3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about 25K. This seems a bit dubious. Of those that have finished theirs, what did it cost in round numbers (If I dare ask...) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 1996 00:09:18 -0500 From: KSPREUER@aol.com Subject: Re: re. info pack questions In a message dated 96-01-11 21:02:39 EST, you write: >>3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about >>25K. This seems a bit dubious. > >My plane will end up costing around $15,500 (give or take a grand). I did >buy a used engine and that is included in the cost as well as all the >instruments. How'd you do that? I figure the basic materials run nearly $12K, even a used engine at maybe $5K, + instruments and radios. I built my basic 3 place very frugaly, but fully IFR for $25K (in1984 to 88 dollars). I'm guessing it will take $30K now maybe a little better equiped but still with a cheep engine. You must really know how to streach a dollar! Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 13:03:39 -0700 From: Pilot@sisna.com (Dave Chapman) Subject: Re: re. info pack questions >>>3) The info kits describe the ability to finish the plane for about >>>25K. This seems a bit dubious. >> >>My plane will end up costing around $15,500 (give or take a grand). I did >>buy a used engine and that is included in the cost as well as all the >>instruments. > >How'd you do that? I figure the basic materials run nearly $12K, even a used >engine at maybe $5K, + instruments and radios. I built my basic 3 place very >frugaly, but fully IFR for $25K (in1984 to 88 dollars). I'm guessing it will >take $30K now maybe a little better equiped but still with a cheep engine. >You must really know how to streach a dollar! Well, yes I have stretched a few dollars until they squealed! Here are a few secrets to making the little greenbacks your slaves... First off, I have taken homebuilding to heart and have built virtually everything for my plane. For example, instead of buying wheelpants for the typical price of around $250, I borrowed one pant from a friend who has a Long Eze. After determining that it was symetrical about two axis, I made a plaster mold lined with a layer of bid. Then for about $25 worth of materials I made my wheelpants! I have loaned out the mold and several sets have been made with it. When I needed parts like the nose gear wheel well, I just grabbed some urethane or pour in place foam and made a part that fit perfectly. Another example is the cowling, for about 25% the cost you get a cowl that fits perfectly (unlike the prefab ones that you have to trim and fit for hours. Prefab parts are fine but I like the satisfaction of building everything myself, to say nothing of the incredible savings possible. I also get to control the quality of the parts. (probably the most important aspect) Secondly, shop around. I found a good used engine (O-320 E2D with 1600 hours, good compression, all accessories) for $3500. I checked it out very carefully, including talking to the mechanic who removed it from the plane, and examining the logs. I know that most people won't be able to find such a good deal however there are good deals out there to be had if you shop around and do your homework. Thirdly, decide what is important. It would be nice to have the latest whiz bang gizmos in my panel including digital instruments, full LCD panel, dual radios, and the latest in heads up displays; however, the cost of all those neat things can easily add up to the $25K Kieth mentioned. I have Westach instruments, they are cheap, light, and simple. I know, it's kind of weird to have "steam guages" in a high tech aircraft but they do the trick! Fourth, realize that doing the preceeding things to build for less money takes a lot of time...... 7 years so far....... Dave Chapman (Pilot@sisna.com) "Man's flight through life USHGA #5742 is sustained by the power Park City, Utah of his knowledge" (801) 647-0319 Cozy 3 on gear, with the engine on, in other words, 80% done and 80% to go... ***************************************************************************** Date: Sat, 20 Jan 96 15:59:04 From: jvasher@ic.net Subject: space to build CH? I don't have a basement nor do I have a garage, But I do have a very large family room with a large window to move the boat through and a door to get the wings out. What I was wondering is how much of the room would I need to section off (Very MIN) to allow room to build the wings and the boat seperatly then towards the end I would rent a hangar to assemble and complete the process.. Is any of this sound practical. Two more questions: I got prices from wicks, and aircraft spruce, and tried from alexanders but they acted confused but basically for under 8000 I can get all that they had to offer to build and was told that I would have to get the rest from some other place I'm assuming this would be from the designer. But would any one have an Idea on how much more this would be (excluding the engine and avionics)(oh that brings up a point when "except avionics" is stated does that mean radios or does that include the instruments (I have a little arguement going on this one)) Last Question is it practical to beg, borrow or buy other builders jigs and forms or is this pretty much a bad idea? If someone is within a few hundred miles of me and would be interested the above please drop me a line. I live in whitmore lake michigan (810)231-6113 and would love to take a drive and pick up the jigs and check out other folks work... Even lend a hand on a weekend if someone would need it. --- jvasher@ic.net Cozy_Builder wanna b' From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: space to build CH? (fwd) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 96 0:14:22 EST Joe Vasher asks: >........ What I was wondering is how much of the room >would I need to section off (Very MIN) to allow room to build the wings >and the boat seperatly then towards the end I would rent a hangar to >assemble and complete the process.. Is any of this sound practical. I'm building in a 10' x 20' basement area. I wouldn't want to try anything much smaller than this. Two more questions: >I got prices from wicks, and aircraft spruce, and tried from alexanders >but they acted confused but basically for under 8000 I can get all that >they had to offer .......... >But would any one have an Idea on how much more this would be (excluding >the engine and avionics)......... I'm buying everything from Wicks, ACS, Alexanders, Brock, Featherlite, AeroCad, etc. I figure I'll have ~$17K in my airframe before I buy and engine and ANY instruments, avionics, radios, or any of that stuff. This does, however, include all the machined and welded parts, some pre-fab stuff, etc. Look in the archives - we've recently had discussions about cost - I think they're in the "gen_info" section in "Current Year". People have finished COZYs for anywhere between $15K (INCREDIBLE!!!!) and $40K. I figure I'll have a VFR, stripped cozy for $35K, and add equipment slowly after that. >Last Question is it practical to beg, borrow or buy other builders jigs >and forms or is this pretty much a bad idea? Only a bad idea if they've done a crappy job :-). Otherwise, it'll save a bunch of work. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: General Information Date: Wed, 31 Jan 96 9:25:49 EST Joe Vasher asks: >I heard mention of the RONCZ Carnard (SPELLING?) What is it and what >are the advantages? It's the one specified for the MKIV :-). The previous canard airfoils used on Rutan's designs had some undesirable characteristics in the rain or when dirty. The RONCZ canard is less affected by these contaminants. >.............. Hope it is only a >matter of tacking on 3" to get the old carnard size? Yes, since Nat says to just hack 3" off each side to make it shorter. Just remember that the plans say the short one is mandatory - everything else it at your own risk :-). >After the COZY mkIV is completed will it be possible to remove the >carnard, wings, and landing gear? Yep. Can't trailer it (too wide) and it takes some effort to do all that, but they're not permanently installed. Canard easiest, wings next, and gear the hardest. >Any suggestions on a EPOXY PUMP, I would like to get the one burt ruttan >used in his video on how to build the longEZ. ONE lever dispenses both. However I think I need to get one that works with the type of epoxy? You really need to get the Wicks and ACS catalogs. They list different pumps for different epoxies, or adjustable ones for switching. >....... And that brings up another question with this MDA reaction >problem, What is the proper EPOXY to use, 2427b and 2427A-G (Wicks >recomended as a good replacement for Safty-poxy or RAF? Any and all of the above will work fine. Depends on what you can get and what you like working with - they have different characteristics. The 2427 has low viscosity, so it's easy to wet out, but it has some difficulties which you can read about in the archives - it's clear, so it's hard to see if you've got air bubbles, and it doesn't like anything to be laid up over it when it's half cured. Nothing will stick. The Safety-Poxy is easier to see, but a bit thicker. I've never used the RAE stuff so I can't comment on it. >Will I be able to find information on how to BUILD, BUY a hot wire cutter >in the plans? Yes. Also in the ACS catalog. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 12:01:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re: Few questions came up. The wings and canard are removable. There are three wing attach bolts on each wing and a quick disconnect for the control linkage. The canard is a quick disconnect and a couple of bolts. I bought the epoxy pump from Wicks catalogue. You can get it configured for Saftypoxy or RAE and it is a single handle to dispense both hardner and resin. I have seen several in Sport Aviation and Kitplanes where the ratios can be easily changed. The one I bought can be changed by drilling a few holes to reposition the handles. In any case it will set you back about $200. The plans contain a drawing and a few words about building your own hotwire saw. Take a look at the Wicks or AS&S catalogue. They have a power supply kit for the saw. Basically it is simply a dimmer switch and transformer with a xerox of a wiring diagram. I bought it, substituted a hardware store dimmer switch, built a box and started hot wiring. Its worked great. The hot wire saw in the plans has a low tension on the wire. This problem is amplified when the wire heats up. The low tension causes a lag in the center of the wire when drawing it through the foam. I borrowed a saw from a fellow in my EAA chapter that used a high tension stainless steel wire. Worked fantastic! I believe I've seen plans for saw advertised. It'll be a while before you need it so keep your eye opened for a set of plans or a loaner. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Few questions came up. Author: jvasher@ic.net at INTERNET Date: 1/30/96 6:05 PM After the COZY mkIV is completed will it be possible to remove the carnard, win gs, and landing gear? Any suggestions on a EPOXY PUMP, Will I beable to find information on how to BUILD, BUY a hot wire cutter in the plans? --- jvasher@ic.net Cozy_Builder wanna b' with Plans in the MAIL! Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:40:10 -0800 From: harvey3@ix.netcom.com (Neil K. Clayton) Subject: 2 Questions 2 questions pls; 1)I'm confused when a particular type of foam is used for a particular application...? Why/when would a designer call out Divynicell, Urethane, PVC (H45, H100, R100), Clark foam (Last-a-foam), Styrofoam, Polyfoam, etc, etc, etc. Can someone throw some light on this apparently black art for me? 2) Is "5 minute" the same/similar structural strength as Safe-t-poxy or should I think of it more as Micro/Bondo - useful "glue" but don't put it anywhere you need high strength? Thx. Neil From: Marc Zeitlin Date: Fri, 16 Feb 96 15:40:33 EST Subject: 2 Questions (fwd) Neil K. Clayton asks: >1)I'm confused when a particular type of foam is used for a particular >application...? > >Why/when would a designer call out Divynicell, Urethane, PVC (H45, >H100, R100), Clark foam (Last-a-foam), Styrofoam, Polyfoam, etc, etc, >etc. Can someone throw some light on this apparently black art for me? Depends on what you're trying to do. Carving Urethane is easy, carving the others is less so. You can hot wire the styrofoam - if you hot wire the others you will die from the fumes (and possibly cremate your dead body as well :-) ). If the foam will need some structural integrity, then you need a higher density foam, which may only be available in certain materials. If you're making thin panels, like bulkheads, you have certain strength and thickness requirements. Different foams have differing abilities to stay adhered to the surface of the glass layed over it - you generally don't use Urethane in a high stress area, as it comes apart easily. Some foams bend easily, for making curved areas, others fracture when you try to bend them. As with any engineering effort, you choose a particular material based on its properties and its cost. There are always some substitutions that can be made depending upon what you have at hand, but when there's any doubt, you should check with the designer. >2) Is "5 minute" the same/similar structural strength as Safe-t-poxy or >should I think of it more as Micro/Bondo - useful "glue" but don't put >it anywhere you need high strength? NO!!!!! It's neither of these. It's used PURELY AS A TEMPORARY bond - mostly for the jigging (although I've taken to using a hot-glue gun for most of this), or for holding stuff in place for the long term curing of the layups. The 5-min epoxy is NOT a laminating resin, and it's properties are NOT appropriate for ANY stress bearing area of the aircraft. It's also VERY heavy - it's not a filler. For large fill areas, the MICRO is the way to go. Of course, if you've done a perfect job, you won't HAVE any large fill areas :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 07:22:09 UT From: "Keith Proctor" Subject: Cozy MkIV and AeroCanard Hi, I am new to the group, being a "PreBuild" on-looker for many months. I had narrowed my kit choices down to Cozy MkIV and Velocity. The financials convinced me that Cozy would be my final pick. As I was writing the check, I heard about AeroCad and AeroCanard. My requests for info from AeroCad have gone without response (they are in the South and life is slower paced there). So, what do we think about AeroCanard? Does one buy Nat's plans and pieces from AeroCad? Does AeroCad provide the plans? How interchangeable are the various parts? The AeroCanard Web page gives a great prices and features comparison. The AeroCanard seems half way between the Cozy and the Velocity in virtually every respect, including cost. Is it really that simple? Can one build the Cozy and just substitute various high-time-to-build pieces from AeroCad? Any other thoughts? Thanks for your input and time, Keith From: Marc Zeitlin Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 9:34:00 EST Subject: Cozy MkIV and AeroCanard (fwd) Keith Proctor writes: >................. My requests for info from AeroCad have >gone without response (they are in the South and life is slower paced there). This is very surprising - Jeff Russell is usually VERY responsive. >So, what do we think about AeroCanard? Does one buy Nat's plans and pieces >from AeroCad? Does AeroCad provide the plans? How interchangeable are the >various parts? Yes. :-). These questions really show the need for a FAQ list for COZY's and AeroCanards - we've probably answered these questions 5 times over the past year, but it may not be the easiest thing to find them in the archives. AeroCad sells parts for the MKIV, as well as parts and kits for the AeroCanard. MOST of the parts are interchangeble. The fuselage tub and top are really the main areas of difference - the wings and canard are basically identical, as is the main and nose landing gear struts. Jeff does high quality work and he's a really nice guy. I have bought my landing gear from him, as well as some other glass parts and the rudder pedals. I'm in the process of deciding whether to buy his wing quick build kits, or go the standard route - the feedback I've gotten from others in this forum who have used his wing kits makes me lean toward them, even though it will end up costing me ~$1200 more. >....... The AeroCanard seems half way between the Cozy and the Velocity in >virtually every respect, including cost. Is it really that simple? Basically, yes. >............ Can one >build the Cozy and just substitute various high-time-to-build pieces from >AeroCad? Yes. >........ Any other thoughts? Only on bad days :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 00:37:35 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Cozy MkIV and AeroCanard On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Keith Proctor wrote: > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 96 07:22:09 UT > From: Keith Proctor > To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: Cozy MkIV and AeroCanard > > Hi, > I am new to the group, being a "PreBuild" on-looker for many months. I had > narrowed my kit choices down to Cozy MkIV and Velocity. The financials > convinced me that Cozy would be my final pick. As I was writing the check, I > heard about AeroCad and AeroCanard. My requests for info from AeroCad have > gone without response (they are in the South and life is slower paced there). > So, what do we think about AeroCanard? Does one buy Nat's plans and pieces > from AeroCad? Does AeroCad provide the plans? How interchangeable are the > various parts? The AeroCanard Web page gives a great prices and features > comparison. The AeroCanard seems half way between the Cozy and the Velocity in > virtually every respect, including cost. Is it really that simple? Can one > build the Cozy and just substitute various high-time-to-build pieces from > AeroCad? Any other thoughts? > > Thanks for your input and time, > Keith > Keith, Iam sure you willrecieve many answersto this one...as it is an ongoing controversy (?) . Go by facts and your needs. I have been working on my MKIV for 3.5 yrs. I never considered the Velocity because of cost and that they had gone into deep stalls that were non recoverable. Here are the Facts...(and I have worked on both the Cozy (obviously) and AeroCanard) The Cozy MKIV... Direct decendent of the Cozy and Long-eze. Proven track record, MANY flying. Plans are good, some of the best in the homebuilt mkt. (yet still somewhat confusing at times). Nat has been building these since mid 70's (Jeff Russell was still a kid) and gives excellent product support. Nat has also EXTENSIVELY TEST FLOWN his plane. It is cheaper than any KITPLANE in it's class to build. You can build in small installments because it is PLANS BUILT (you make it all as opposed to KIT pieces) The big controversy centers in on personality. Nat is older and less accepting of builders trying different mods. AeroCanard....... Jeff started this several years ago. Yes, it is a hybred, between a Cozy MKIV (front seatback forward) and a Velocity (Rearend). There are only a few flying and Jeff hasn't flight tested the limits as well as Nat has on the MKIV. Though even Nat has admitted to me that Jeff does superior work. I have some of Jeffs prefab parts on my plane. So Quality is no question. Full testing is a questionable area yet, though what has been done is very positive and right on the numbers. Jeffs is definately larger in the backseat (do you have four in your family) this is a very positive aspect. His is obviously faster to build but at a cost. (If it was around when I started to build and I wasn't concerned about money too much, I would have had a tough time deciding) Jeff to date has no "plans" he send you videos as he explains what he is doing. Last I talked to him he was working on drawings and descriptions to go along with the videos. Generally he is easy to get a holdof during the day. He recently has started doing the composite courses for Ron Alexander and appears to be on the road frequently. His father Greg usually will answer the phone though. Bottom line..... Cost...Build time......need, as far as pax requirement and cabin space. No issue items....Quality, support, performance, ease of construction. This is my contribution...I'm sure there will be more.... Sincerely Bill W Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 14:16:35 +0000 From: Gary Buscombe Subject: which to build? John...its a major decision; don't be reluctant to consider all the facts about each plane. Any of them will be a great airplane, its just how soon you want to get to a "flying" model and at what cost. The Cozy gives the biggest bang for your buck, but it takes forever to build! The Velocity seems to be a good canard, but still requires a considerable building effort and costs more. The Aerocanard might be a reasonable compromise between the two projects ( I only saw one under construction at Oshkosh one year, and don't know the cost or time to build.) But don't kid yourself...the Cozy IV is a major commitment of time and money, but you'll have quite a plane to fly! Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 09:29:38 -0700 (MST) From: "John David Bohn" <94390@ef.gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Which to build For the last couple of months I have been watching this news group and attempting to comprehend most of the information that has come across. I am hoping to begin construction of a canard-type aircraft within the next year. My delima is in trying to decide which aircraft to build. I know that I will need a four place aircraft with good speed and range for cross-country flying. So I have narrowed the choices down to a Cozy, a AeroCanard, or a Velocity. Last week my fiance' and I visited the Velocity West factory in Lincoln, CA. and we were able to gain some insight into the construction of an aircraft, by the way its a beautiful bird. Tomorrow we will be going to visit Nat and to take a look at his plane and plans. My question is what sort of things should I ask Nat about, what things should I look at on his aircraft, and what should I expect out of this aircraft. The cockpit size of these aircraft is a major concern to us since we are both around 6'3". I appreciate any comments or suggestions you might add and apologize if my question seems to sophmoric. Thanks John Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 22:26:23 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Which to build On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, John David Bohn wrote: > > For the last couple of months I have been watching this news group and > attempting to comprehend most of the information that has come across. I > am hoping to begin construction of a canard-type aircraft within the next > year. My delima is in trying to decide which aircraft to build. I know > that I will need a four place aircraft with good speed and range for > cross-country flying. So I have narrowed the choices down to a Cozy, a > AeroCanard, or a Velocity. Last week my fiance' and I visited the > Velocity West factory in Lincoln, CA. and we were able to gain some > insight into the construction of an aircraft, by the way its a beautiful > bird. Tomorrow we will be going to visit Nat and to take a look at his > plane and plans. My question is what sort of things should I ask Nat > about, what things should I look at on his aircraft, and what should I > expect out of this aircraft. The cockpit size of these aircraft is a > major concern to us since we are both around 6'3". I appreciate any > comments or suggestions you might add and apologize if my question seems > to sophmoric. > > Thanks > John > John, Welcome to our arena. The choices that you outline all have benefits and drawbacks. Velocity- Kit (easy of building) costs $$$$$ higher power, more complexity (fuel injection, retract...) Their newest edition is their best. CozyIV- Inexpensive, takes longer to build (plans not kit) can regulate your finances, simpler, sometimes too simple, has restrictive backseat confines designed for children to sit in not full size adults. Aerocad- This is a hybred, from the frontseat back forward pretty much is cozy, from that pt back it is velocity. Has rearseat room, larger engine (more cost to run/maintain), fixed gear- eliminates the complexity of retracts. Is a prefab kit, such as the Velocity. Other differences are in the controls and their locations. Larger engine doesn't mean faster speed but does mean additional fuel cost. Front seat is large enough in any of these models, the back seat is the prime difference when it comes to size. (I believe that Aerocad is about 2 inches wider in the front seat than a Cozy). Cost is different (kits typically require more up front outlay and final cost is higher.) Speeds are variable. The Cozy and Aercanard are probably close (200mph) and the Velocity is a little slower. Stay away from retracts!!! Some of the larger ins companies won't insure some types of retarcts put in by homebuilders. You loose storage and fuel space and don't gain that much. I have worked on all of the above but limited exposure to the Velocity. I am working on a Cozy mkIV and will be done in the next 2 yrs. Hopethis has helped. There is alot of resorces on this format. Hope Ihelped some. Bill Walsh Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:51:57 -0700 (MST) From: "John David Bohn" <94390@ef.gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Visit with Nat I would like to say thanks to everyone who commented on my last posting (Which to build). Your advice, coments and suggestion are appreciated. My fiancce' and I met with Nat and his wife Saturday afternoon and were able to get a very detailed look at his aircraft. We both came to the agreement that it does truely live up to its name. It is quite cozy for us. It was not so bad for Sasha for she is a little slimmer than I. For me howerver, my legs were touching the bottom of the instrument panel, and the side counsoles, and I felt cramped in the seat width wise. We did not even attempt to climb into the back. This was quite a departure for us from the Velocity where we were able to sit in the back comfortable and talk about the aircraft for 15 min. Nat said that the widening of the tub would not be a problem. He even meantion one builder who has widen it 6 inches. He also said that you can raise the canopy and drop the floor to make it easier for us to fit in. I am wondering what all is envolved in this process besides the widening of the bulkheads. Does the main spar length have to be increased. If so how will that effect its strength. I am still very interested in this aircraft. Both Sasha and myself are quite fond of it but we still have our concerns. Thanks John Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:25:13 -0400 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Winglets to Wing Hints Daryll Lueck wrote that you can make removing the Bondo easier if you use more hardener. As an FYI, for those of you who haven't found out already, you can buy hardener at the local True Value if you use up the stuff that comes with the bondo. It costs a fortune (several bucks for a small tube) however. The manufacturer must know that we are all rich airplane builders. Dick Finn Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 12:09:22 -0700 (MST) From: orion13@primenet.com (Jeff Burhans) Subject: Re: COZY: Wright brothers to now I have a, perhaps, silly question - I haven't even started on my Cozy yet (am planning on buying the plans before year's end) and am enjoying learning as much as I can via this group and local EAA before I start. I've been reading a lot in a number of places that the MK IV might not handle two avearge size adults comfortably in the rear seats - is this so? Can anyone who's actually had two people in the rear compare it to anything? Like, is it as snug a fit as a Cessna 150? Worse? Any information would be appreciated! * * *RION * Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 13:41:58 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: COZY: Cozy back seat room Since I'm just finishing installing the rear arm rests and seat backs, Susan and I got into the back for a trial fit. We would be VERY cozy back there! I'm 190+ and she's--well, I'd best not say except to say she is not diminuitive. For me the length would be somewhat uncomfortable since I can't straighten out my legs which no fuselage widening is going to help. Our family is two good size adults plus a 9 year old daughter. For that situation the Cozy is perfect. A 172 is no picnic either but you're not reclining in the back so your legs perhaps have more room--I guess I have to say that I've always been left seat in a 172 so I'm no expert on back seat room in small GA airplanes. Michael 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Currently on 16 and 24. From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: COZY: Cozy IV bottom/AeroCAD top rear room Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 17:17:23 -0500 Several builders have asked about this and since that's what I'm building, I though I'd post my views on it. Item: AeroCAD molded fuselage top, One piece: F0 to spinner Pros- 1. adds head room in back 2. adds a little bit of elbow room 3. allows for wrap-around windshield (builders option) 4. provides excellent fit (all one piece so the fit lengthwise is perfect) 5. decreased build time 6. carbon fiber cowline 7. allows for optional arm-pit scoops (like Velocity/Aerocanard) Cons- 1. adds cost 2. doesn't really add any shoulder/seat room 3. must add flange to per-plans tub sides for rear of top to attach It's a cost vs time thing really. The only way you will get 4 adults "comfortably" in a Cozy IV is to widen out the rear of the tub during the building process. Otherwise you should plan on 2 adults and a lot of baggage or 2 adults, 2 kids and a small duffle bag. Sid Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:06:55 -0400 From: CheckPilot@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy back seat room In a message dated 96-07-07 16:48:16 EDT, you write: > A 172 is no picnic either but you're not >reclining in the back so your legs perhaps have more room--I guess I have to >say that I've always been left seat in a 172 so I'm no expert on back seat >room in small GA airplanes. Back when I was a Private Pilot I went along on a long instrument cross country (in the backseat of the aforementioned C-172) just to watch. It was a six hour lesson in torture. The CFI I was sitting behind was well past 6 ft. and I had a guy next to me that was the same, needless to say I never wanted to be in the backseat of a 172 for any longer than necessary. Make sure you fit, or at least whoever is going to sit there fits. For my three place, I was planning on the back to be a large baggage area with the occasional passenger. Jim Date: Thu, 11 Jul 96 11:57:24 EST From: MISTER@neesnet.com Subject: COZY: Document Holders Most of the completed airplanes I've seen have these nice little stick-on plastic holders for their documents, (i.e. airworthiness certificate, registratration and FCC license). Where do you get these ? Bob Misterka N342RM Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 20:53:55 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: epoxy scale, building philosophy In a message dated 96-08-16 14:36:41 EDT, you write: > Bill Kleb writes: > "what are the make and model of scales people are using for mixing epoxy > and finished parts? also, if you recall, where did you get them?" > > I have been using an epoxy pump for the last 4.5 years. Its quick, easy and > as near as I can tell it is accurate. The cost is about $200 from Wicks. > > Originally I tried a balance and found it way to difficult to use and my > layups were of dubious quality. I threw away the first seat back as it was > still tacky after four months. I know others have had good results with the > scales and balances but I am quite happy with my pump. > > Dick Finn I agree with Dick. An epoxy pump is the way to go. Its accuracy is adequate, and it's much faster to use than syringes, scales, etc. I use a ammunition reloading scale (powder scale) to periodically check the accuracy of my pump. I don't believe there's any need to weigh every batch of epoxy. My sticky-stuff dispenser has held together for the last 11 years with only minor repairs/maintenance. An epoxy pump is the easiest and fastest way to go. I've just checked my mail after several days absence, and there are several threads that I'd like to comment on. I also want to give all of you my building philosophy that I've developed in over 11 years building, that I hope you'll think about. Before you blast me for it, remember it's based on 11 years of experience which should count for something. First, I have been a very meticulous builder. Too meticulous. That's why I'm still building while others have built perfectly adequate airplanes in 3-4 years. DON'T do what I've done for the majority of my project, and that is to accept nothing less than perfection. I guess I'm a prideful person, and I've rejected a lot of parts simply because they didn't look perfect, even though they met RAF's acceptability criteria. Of course you must satisfy yourself that the work is structurally adequate, but that is all! Keep in mind that your whole visible structure will either be covered with filler or a Zolatone type paint. Don't worry about how your unfinished structures look as long as they are structurally sound. And don't invest additional time in new techniques that aren't PROVEN to save time over the older techniques. About repairing bubbles - both techniques described, sanding out the bubble and laying on a patch, and filling the bubble with epoxy, work fine. Decide which technique is the fastest/easiest for the particular part, and use the fastest/easiest technique. About hardshelling and/or covering the entire structure with peel ply. I'm not convinced that either of these techniques save any time. I know that there are those of you that are devoted to these techniques, but if you're a devotee and haven't completed the finishing stage yet, and ALSO haven't finished an airplane the old fashioned way, you really don't have the experience to adequately judge which technique is easiest/fastest. I welcome any comments from those who have built a whole airplane each way, and can sort out the wheat from the chaff. I don't have that experience, because I've built only one plane and used the old techniques. About vacuum bagging. Its all the rage these days, and for larger parts you will see some weight savings. But for the smaller parts weighing only a small percentage of the overall empty weight, I wouldn't think the technique is justified. I built my cowls from Experimental Aviation's Berkut cowling molds and I vacuum bagged those. I'm sure I realized a weight savings, and since the weight is on the tail, I'm sure the extra effort and time was worth it. But vacuum bagging can add 30-50 percent to the overall layup time. I don't think the weight savings gained justify the extra building time for most parts. If you have a part that you've really screwed up, like a large surface with bubbles or dry areas, determine which is fastest/easiest to do - either repair or rebuild, but be sure to arrive at this decision by the fastest/easiest rule, not the appearance rule, as long as the technique you choose results in an adequate structural part (NOT perfect, but adequate!). I've only recently learned this. That's why I've been building for 11 years. At the beginning of your project, buy as many power tools as you can afford. Band saw, circular bench sander, bench grinder, palm sander, drill press (with a COMPLETE set of bits - check the Harbor Freight catalog, the foreign drill bit sets are perfectly adequate), all of these tools should be purchased in the very early stages of your project. I recently borrowed a band saw from a friend to cut out my aluminum baffles, and instantly fell in love with it! In fact, if it could cook and wear thong underwear, I'm afraid my current marriage would be doomed! 8^) This tool alone would have saved me at least 2 months of sweaty effort over the last 11 years, just in work savings alone. But more than that, it would have saved me several more months in procrastination time (Hmmm, spend the next 3 hours cutting aluminum with a hack saw?? I think I'll tackle that tomorrowwwwwww!) You've probably noticed by now that I'm concentrating on the building time we invest in our projects, and for good reason. Make no mistake folks, we 're all in a race against time. The race consists of finishing the project before the drive and intense interest wanes. How many of us have previously become so immersed in a hobby that takes almost all of one's free time for 4-5 years at a stretch? Not many I'll bet. If you DON'T win this race, i.e. complete the project before your interest wanes, you'll be one of the many (the majority!) of builders who never complete their project. In the EZ world, less than half of projects started are completed by the first owner. If you fizzle out, I'm sure the person that takes over your project will appreciate all the extra effort you put into vacuum bagged parts, hardshelled structures, epoxy weighed with a scale, and the like. But all that extra effort got you nothing but the realization that you devoted a couple of years to a hobby that you now have nothing to show for. You'll be faced with the fact that you started something that you couldn't finish. It was way over your head. YOU GAVE UP! You want to live with that? I don't. That's why I've refused to give up after 11 years. I HAVE to prove to those snickerers who shake their heads at my "stupid" hobby that I'll have something to show for it. But I'm much more stubborn than most. Statistics indicate that you probably aren't as stubborn as I. Please keep in mind that your personal lives are going to change during the course of the project. Just because you have the time to invest in all these new techniques now, doesn't mean that you'll have the time 5 years down the road. If you're single, you may get married. Children are born, older children get into soccer, baseball, etc, and these activities and new responsibilities will eat into your available free time. You'll also get older, and will have less energy available to devote to your project. This is important. If you are under 40, you might get along just fine on a few hours of sleep, and still have the personal energy to keep on top of all your responsibilities. Take it from me though, as you get older you're available reserve of personal energy gets smaller. After a full day at work, soccer practice in the evening, then dinner, the 30 year old may have enough steam left over to put in a couple of hours in the garage. For the 40 or 50 year old, the choice is easy. A little TV followed by falling asleep in the recliner. Been there, done that. Do yourself a great favor - learn from my mistakes. I doubt that you're as stubborn as I am, not to give up on the dream after 11 years of building. Build adequate parts, and build fast. Make the most efficient use of your limited building time as you possibly can. Think about it. Postscript - As I was finishing up this diatribe, David Orr did a couple of turns about my house in his Defiant. He often does this to keep me plugging away at my project. I'm sure he also did it today to show me that his Defiant his now flying again. Upon landing a couple of weeks ago his nose gear apparently wasn't overcenter and it collapsed upon landing. Broke the prop, ground over half of his rhino rudder off, ground a big hole in his cowling, and ground several inches off the tips of his exhaust pipes (which exit downward on the front engine). He came over to my house last week with all the damaged parts to do the repairs. He had ALL the parts repaired in under 12 hours, with another 4 hours or so in the finish sanding. The work wasn't perfect, a little waviness in the trailing edge of the rudder, a few pinholes in the finish, but he is FLYING, and I'm not! I've seen his work, and he knows the difference between perfect work and perfectly adequate work. He also built his Long-EZ in under 4 years. Again, flying proof that adequate work is good enough. Again, think about it. I'm out of town for the next week, but will respond to any replies when I get back. Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:20:58 -0400 From: AlWick@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 Landing Gear Bulkheads In a message dated 96-09-30 22:00:33 EDT, you write: << I also am planning to itemize the steps for each section of text rather than trying to just read the paragraphs and remember the whole shebang. >> Recommend you read ahead 1 page at all times. Use a yellow Hi-Liter to mark off each sentence as you complete it, then read ahead 1 paragraph. The Hi-liter greatly reduces odds of ommitting step, and it provides a feeling of accomplishment. Often there are days where I only get to line out 1 sentence. I've completed most of the major components, fortunately only made 2 minor errors, both related to ambiguous instructions for plan mods. ALMOST made some significant errors, but hilite and double checking before saved me. Nats instructions are the best I've ever seen for ANYTHING, yet all of us are prone to mistakes just because there are hundreds of opportunities. Hope this helps. Good luck al Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:12:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 Landing Gear Bulkheads > In a message dated 96-09-30 22:00:33 EDT, you write: > > << I also am planning to itemize the steps for each section of text > rather than trying to just read the paragraphs and remember the whole > shebang. >> > Recommend you read ahead 1 page at all times. > Use a yellow Hi-Liter to mark off each sentence as you complete it, then read > ahead 1 paragraph. > The Hi-liter greatly reduces odds of ommitting step, and it provides a > feeling of accomplishment. Often there are days where I only get to line out > 1 sentence. What I do is to circle the steps/para's/lines I complete and write the date next to it. It makes the plans look messy but if I ever loose my log book I can go back and retrace my steps. It also helps me track my progress, which unfortunately is slowing down these last few weeks. ============================================================================= Roy H. Grossinger- ME grossinr@rastro.colorado.edu Cozy Mk IV #503; Chapter 7 ROY_GROSSINGER@Radon-hq.ccmail.compuserve.com CU's Go - 4; Hull Layup "A man's destiny is his character" Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 11:04:23 -0700 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: Cozy Ideas Hello Cozyites, I had a local Cosy Classic builder, Carl Denk, look over my neophyte project this week. I also went out to inspect his 3 year old airplane. It sits right next to Terry Schubert's Long-EZ. I realized how many ideas can be picked up by viewing some other airplanes. Carl is very innovative and I came away with a list of ideas to pursue. Here are a few to get started: 1. Use a retractable inertia reel installed thru a hole in the shoulder support and bolted to the top piece of the shoulder support under the headrest. This allows forward movement without loosening your straps and solves the new narrow attachment points around or cut into the headrest. Carl used a metal piece to connect to the top harness straps which would keep them separated. 2. Place cabin air scoops on the bottom of the nose area rather than on the sides of the plane. This keeps water from entering while flying in rain. 3. Fabricate an electrical raceway along the entire length of the run through the cabin. This will protect the wires from getting mixed up with controls tubes, brake lines, vaccuum lines, etc. You wouldn't want to bundle tie these wires anyway in case you needed to remove them later or feed in more wire. 4. Run heat ducts up to the forward canopy area to provide for defrosting. This could be a safety issue providing for visibility. Do any of the owners of completed airplanes see a need for this? 5. Fabricate a small gutter with a drain hole under the elevator torque tube. 6. Provide an inline switch to lock the brakes on, serving as a parking brake in order to exit the aircraft on a sloped surface or in the wind. 7. Build a vent to allow air to escape the aft end of the cabin into the slipstream. This will allow much better ventilation for hot or cold air moving through the cabin. 8. Provide for tieing down the nose of the airplane. There are numerous ways this could be accomplished. Carl felt this was important when tieing down in windy conditions. Maybe this list will start some discussion in other directions. Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com CozyMKIV # 536 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 11:02:13 -0500 (CDT) From: Bill Jackson Subject: COZY: project budgeting I'm still in the project feasibilty stage of this homebuilt dream, (my Wife prefers the term fantasy). I remember seeing a cost schedule on the net somewhere that may help me get an idea of actual costs, including plywood for jigs, workbench, epoxy pumps misc.. Anyone have such a beast? Also, does anyone have advice on selling a spouse the homebuilt concept? Stalled in Bloomington, Bill Jackson USACERL Champaign, IL jackson@sierra.cecer.army.mil From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: project budgeting (fwd) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 15:33:48 EDT Bill Jackson writes: >I remember seeing a cost schedule on the net somewhere that may help me get an >idea of actual costs, including plywood for jigs, workbench, epoxy pumps misc.. >Anyone have such a beast? See: http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/docs/ or the majordomo archives - ./docs/cozy_wk4.mim Plan on adding 10% to what's in there for cost increases over time, and another 10% for shipping, unless you're near A.S.S. or Wicks. >Also, does anyone have advice on selling a spouse the homebuilt concept? Be nice, get the spouse to trade with you - something she wants for something you want. Take her to airshows and fly-ins - show her the type of plane you want to build and get her a ride. Get her to think it's cool, or at least not completely brain-damaged. If after careful wheedling, romancing, bribing, etc., the answer's still "not interested" then don't build a plane, unless you're interested in getting a divorce. It's a lot of time and a huge commitment, and if you're going to be fighting the basic _idea_ of building a plane, it's not worth it. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:02:09 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: Re: COZY: project budgeting At 11:02 AM 10/21/96 -0500, you wrote: >I'm still in the project feasibilty stage of this homebuilt dream, >(my Wife prefers the term fantasy). > >I remember seeing a cost schedule on the net somewhere that may help me get an >idea of actual costs, including plywood for jigs, workbench, epoxy pumps misc.. >Anyone have such a beast? > >Also, does anyone have advice on selling a spouse the homebuilt concept? > > >Stalled in Bloomington, > > >Bill Jackson >USACERL >Champaign, IL > >jackson@sierra.cecer.army.mil > I don't have an answer as to actual costs except that it will cost more than you will plan for no matter how carefully you do the planning (IMHO). I think it has to be a labor of love and that means finding the money to pay for it when there doesn't seem any way of doing it--at least for those of us who are unlucky enough to have to find the extra money every month out of a budget that is already stretched damn far. Unfortunately, I don't think it can succeed without the wholehearted cooperation of your family. My wife loves the plane, loves the thought that it will extend our horizons tremendously, loves knowing that I am doing something that satisfies my soul and is in every way supportive. She doesn't complain about money being spent on the Cozy that could buy new furniture or new clothes or vacations or lots of other things that we do without to keep the Cozy effort going. She comes out and breathes epoxy fumes when glassing needs doing that one person can't do. She stops what she's doing and rushes out to help when the call comes "can you help me a minute". And most of all she doesn't begrudge the 2000+ hours of time away from her and our daughter that I spend out in the garage. I think the wives of most Cozy builders are the same and should be recognized for their incredible and unselfish support. I know I couldn't build the Cozy if Susan acted differently. I also appreciate her trust in my work and her willingness to literally put her life and our daughter's life on the line when it comes time to fly together. Perhaps one way of "selling" your wife on the homebuilt concept is to talk to wives who are currently involved in building a Cozy--certainly she could talk to mine. 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Chaps 16 & 24 mostly finished. Now on chap 19, one wing finished. Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 08:43:59 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: Re: COZY: project budgeting Bill Jackson writes: > Also, does anyone have advice on selling a spouse the homebuilt concept? my answer: > it seems that the answer is to pick your spouse with this in > mind, or have demonstrated a prior history of similar ludicrous > behavior which was encouraged during an existing marriage. spouse's response: > such as: for years say that you want to do this, so she knows > it's not a passing thing spouse's further comments: o promise to work on it regularly so that it doesnt sit in the garage for 20 years. o work out a budget so that you can make progress without going bankrupt or commandeering all the 'fun' money. o talk about big expenditures before they happen. o promise to still spend quality time with spouse/kids or rather agree to maintain a balance so that all free time isn't devoted to 'The Project'. --- bil kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:43:59 -0400 From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: project budgeting (fwd) Marc wrote: >If after careful wheedling, romancing, bribing, etc., the answer's >still "not interested" then don't build a plane, unless you're >interested in getting a divorce. It's a lot of time and a huge >commitment, and if you're going to be fighting the basic _idea_ of >building a plane, it's not worth it. I have heard of some do so, but I can't imagine not having mutual knowledge, support and at least understanding. Kind of like buying a second house without a joint decission. Results would be identical.... I was lucky; my wife still hasn't been to an airshow and I live 2-hours from Oshkosh; but, I cheated, she knew it was a love I had before I met her...... kind of like the mother-in-law I also brought with me to the marriage; necessary evil..... Just joking.... My wife actually supports my hobby; she doesn't help any, but she doesn't make it difficult either. She plants flowers and tree and guess who digs the holes: Me. It pays off. I do dishes and laundry now and then also. It pays off. Besides getting what you want, begging helps to humble a person too. There was a neat article in the Kitplanes magazine a few months back about this very subject. Had both of us rolling on the floor and pointing fingers at each other. Date: 22 Oct 96 13:54:42 EDT From: Rick Roberts <102503.1561@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: project budgeting (fwd) I have actually come up with a accidental (but expensive) solution, my wife has adopted stained glass manufacturing as a hobby and works on it out in the garage while I work on my airplane. It solved the problem of "we don't spend anytime together" and I really enjoy having her around. Anyway be creative in the involvement of your spouse, significant other, or critters (kids) it may end up taking a little more time overall, but its a lot more fun. Besides nobody wants AIDS (aircraft induced divorce symdrome) Later Rick Roberts From: "James E. Marker" Subject: COZY: Should I Buy Burt's Book or not? Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 09:30:42 -0500 I ordered plans! I can't wait. (how long does it take!) Now for my first real question... Should I order Burt's book on moldless composite construction and the learning kit that comes with it, or is the learning exercises in the plans all that I need? ============================================================================ == Jim Marker (jemstone@csra.net) - http://www.csra.net/jemstone Dad of Jacob (singleton- May 94), Kassidy, Zachary, Skyler (Triplets - Nov 95). University of Illinois - Nuclear Engineering 1990 Desert Shield/Storm Vet - XVIII Airborne Corps - Dragon Brigade COZY Mark IV - Serial Number ??? (Plans On Order!) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:52:37 -0600 (CST) From: Steven A Eberhart Subject: Re: COZY: Should I Buy Burt's Book or not? On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, James E. Marker wrote: > I ordered plans! I can't wait. (how long does it take!) > > Now for my first real question... > > Should I order Burt's book on moldless composite construction and > the learning kit that comes with it, or is the learning exercises in > the plans all that I need? > IMHO the book and kit (purchased from Wicks) was the best money I have spent. Steve Eberhart newtech@newtech.com From: Steve Hall Subject: COZY: Cozy Vne Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:43:12 -0500 Does anyone know what the Vne is on the Cozy MKIV is???? Please no guessing,,,, Thanks. Date: 12 Nov 96 22:27:42 EST From: "Edmond A. Richards" <103235.1336@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Vne Message text written by Steve Hall >Does anyone know what the Vne is on the Cozy MKIV is???? Please no guessing,,,, Thanks.< Steve, According to Nat's Owner's Manual on page 24 under ALLOWABLE FLIGHT ENVELOPE the "Red Line Speed 220 mph (190 kts)" is indicated. Regards Ed Richards From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Cozy Vne (fwd) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 11:05:39 EST Steve Hall asks: >Does anyone know what the Vne is on the Cozy MKIV is???? >Please no guessing,,,, Thanks. According to the COZY MKIV Owner's Manual (First Edition - November 1993), it's: Max. indicated airspeed (Redline), - 190 kts. (220 mph) -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:22:33 -0500 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Vne In a message dated 96-11-12 22:32:46 EST, 103235.1336@compuserve.com (Edmond A. Richards) writes: << According to Nat's Owner's Manual on page 24 under ALLOWABLE FLIGHT ENVELOPE the "Red Line Speed 220 mph (190 kts)" is indicated. >> I seem to remember that Nat (or maybe its Jeff Russell) is advertising cruise speed of 220 mph. Dick Finn Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:42:01 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Vne DFinn7971@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 96-11-12 22:32:46 EST, 103235.1336@compuserve.com (Edmond > A. Richards) writes: > > << > According to Nat's Owner's Manual on page 24 under ALLOWABLE FLIGHT ENVELOPE > the > "Red Line Speed 220 mph (190 kts)" is indicated. > >> > I seem to remember that Nat (or maybe its Jeff Russell) is advertising cruise > speed of 220 mph. > > Dick Finn Remember: VNE is is quoted in indicated aiespeed, cruising airspeed in true airspeed. An airplane can be doing 220 true at 10,000', but only be indicating 190. Fred in Florida Date: 14 Nov 96 01:52:39 EST From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Vne Hi to All, Sorry I didn't get this posted sooner. I started the research in Sept., but got busy. I hope it is of some help and interesting. >Steve Hall wrote< >Does anyone know what the Vne is on the Cozy MKIV is???? Please no guessing,,,, Thanks.< >Edmond A. Richards wrote< >According to Nat's Owner's Manual on page 24 under ALLOWABLE FLIGHT ENVELOPE the "Red Line Speed 220 mph (190 kts)" is indicated.< Someone asked this summer: >Nat lists Vne in the operating manual as 230 MPH. Is that IAS or TAS???< Vne is represented to the pilot as IAS (CAS) so the pilot does not have to make conversions to TAS, and is usually marked on the airspeed indicator with a red line. Someone else asked this summer: >Is this a number that is limited by the test envelope or is there some other reason that 220 mph was chosen? Is it flutter limited?< If memory serves, a Vne of 220 MPH IAS is the Vne in the Long-EZ sample owners manual. You will have to get into Mr. Puffer's extensive Finite Element Analysis of the airframe, the computer generated linearized flow panel "E" codes of the airframe using maybe VS-Aero and Pmark which allows for the three-dimensional inviscid flow about the configuration to be calculated providing the lift, induced drag, moments, neutral point, surface and off-body pressures and velocities for the configuration, and the extensive flight test data using strain gauges that he has conducted, to find how a Vne of 220 MPH for the Cozy Mk-IV was arrived at. Most people think Vne is usually associated with flight control flutter, but this is not necessarily so. Speeds above the 'red line speed' on the airspeed indicator can cause high dynamic pressure and aeroelastic effects that can overstress the airframe structure. Airplane performance deteriorates as weight increases. For this reason, airplanes are built of light weight materials and their structural strength is closely controlled so the airframe can withstand the loads imposed by normal operating maneuvers, but not much more. Because the airframe is so closely designed to the operating requirements, it is possible to overstress an airplane and actually fail the structure itself. For this reason, there are structural limitations imposed on the airplane and the pilot must never intentionally exceed them. There are also aerodynamic limitations on the aircraft. One is set by the maximum lift obtainable at certain airspeeds. This naturally depends upon the maximum value of Cl obtainable. There are also aeroelastic effects resulting from the combined effect of all aerodynamic forces acting on the airframe structure. Since it is possible for the pilot to overstress the airplane through excessive acceleration loads or excessive airspeeds, it is very important that the pilot understand the structural and aerodynamic limitations of the airplane. When an aircraft manufacturer and / or designer designs an aircraft, materials are selected that will not be stressed beyond the elasitc limit during normal operations. A design limit of about 0.8 of the elastic limit is normally used. The designer uses this design stress derived from the information from the stress-strain diagram and the cyclic-stress diagram of the materials used to build an airframe that fulfills the operating requirements outlined in the aircraft specifications / goals set out by the designer. The pilot sees the results of these structural limitations in the form of landing techniques recommended for a particular airplane, power settings recommended by the engine manufacturer, speed limitations, G limitations, etc. You as the Sport Aircraft manufacturer of your pride and joy are more than just the eventual pilot. You will be the test pilot and need to understand these structural limitations. Don't just believe the sample owners manual provided - this is only how the prototype performed. You will have to Research, Develope, Test and Evaluate (RDT & E) your aircraft performance and limitations to verify the sample owners manual to create your own owners manual for the one-of-a-kind aircraft you have built. All the airframe limitations are best summed up by the Vg Diagram. A designer states the airplane will perform its missions according to the goal specifications set forth, and that the airplane will have a service life equal to the requirements set forth in the goal specifications if it is flown within the limits of the Vg Diagram. The Vg Diagram outlines the "Flight Envelope". You as the aircraft manufacturer and test pilot will have to determine and verify the Vg Diagram set forth in the sample owners manual to determine if your aircrafts specific Vg Diagram conforms to and / or exceeds the prototype Vg Diagram in all areas. Structural Limits: The pilot cannot take excessive G loads, therefore there is no reason to build the airframe to support a load that it will never receive. This is a weight-saving factor which helps to increase performance. Any G load greater than the limit load, either negative or positive, may cause damage and / or decreases the service life of the airframe. The damage might not be visible and might only be detected in internal inspections, so any time an aircraft is flown past its design limit load, it probably should be landed (maybe very carefully) as soon as practical, and it must be thoroughly inspected before its next flight. An entry might be made into the airframe log book concerning the possible decrease in the service like of the airframe for future reference if a part eventually fails. The ultimate load for metal is 1.5 times the design limit load. Composite airframes typically have a ultimate load of 2.0 times the design limit load. I think it is traditionally 2.0 because composites have a shorter track record / history than metals, so composite designers are extra conservative. Aerodynamic Limits: The curved lines at the left side of your Vg Diagram show the aerodynamic limits. This is the "accelerated stalling speed" of the aircraft, and these curves show the stalling speed at both positive and negative load factors. The stalling speed is directly proportional to the square root of the load factor. These curves are the maximum lift available when flown at slow airspeeds and at an angle of attack (AOA) that corresponds to Cl max. This is the relationship these curves represent. The lowest velocity at which the aircraft can develop a load factor equal to the limit load is called the "maneuvering speed". At any velocity greater than this maneuvering speed, the aircraft can be overstressed. This is also the velocity where the aircraft can perform its minimum radius of turn. The vertical line shown at the right side of the the Vg Diagram is labeled the "red line speed". This refers to the usual marking of a red line on the airspeed indicator to denote the maximum speed of the airplane. Above this speed, the high dynamic pressure and the aeroelastic effects overstress the airframe structure. Aeroelastic effects refer to the interaction between the aerodynamic forces and the elasticity of the structure. One form of this is called "wing divergence" and causes the wing structure to fail immediately. If the aircraft is flown at velocities above the red line speed, a change in the lift force might produce a positive twisting moment on the wing because of the high dynamic pressure striking the leading edge. This twist of the wing increases the AOA of the wing sections affected; this produces additional lift force which twists the wing even more. This continues until the wing structure fails. "Wing flutter" is sometimes experienced at excessive airspeed. The natural frequencey of the wing, as the result of its elasticity, occurs at velocities above the designed red line speed. A fluttering wing will not fail as quickly as the wing divergence situation, and the pilot will probably have time to reduce the airspeed and stop the flutter. This is one reason why when you test fly your aircraft to verify the prototype Vg Diagram and / or expand the envelope you have already established, it is recommended to be done in 5 KNTS IAS increments. There is also a condition called "aileron reversal" that is a result of an aeroelastic effect. If the pilot puts in right aileron to roll the aircraft to the right, the high dynamic pressure striking the leading edge, coupled with the lift force moving aft on the wing with the down aileron, causes the wing structure to twist the leading edge down. The aircraft rolls to the left instead of the the right. The opposite reaction occurs on the right wing. Since these canards have been tested to a relatively high IAS, compressibility effects are of concern at airspeeds exceeding the printed red line speed of compressibility limited airplanes. The high airspeed can create a shock wave on the wing which causes a buffet or flutter that overstresses the airframe. This buffet feels similar to the aerodynamic buffet encountered before the aerodynamic stall. The Vg diagram is developed for symmetrical loading at certain weights and altitudes. Therefore, a Vg Diagram should be developed for worst case scenarios of weight at different altitudes. If or when any of these factors is changed, there is a change in the aerodynamic, aeroelastic and structural limits of the aircraft. If an airplane has more load on one wing than it has on the other, it is said to have a "non-symmetrical load". This situation is encountered during a rolling pullout. When an aircraft is rolling, the up-going wing has to have more lift than the down-going wing. If the aircraft is pulling its maximum load during a pullout and the pilot rolls the aircraft, the up-going wing is overstressed, even though the accelerometer in the cockpit shows a G load below the limit load. Bottom line - be careful testing Vne so you don't get into a non-symmetrical load situation before you are ready. Summary: There are limits imposed on an airplane for structural, aerodynamic and aeroelastic reasons. You should understand all of these limits and never exceed them. Fortunately, most all composite aircraft are well over built. The probable biggest concern is flight control flutter because of an out-of-balance flight control situation which is usually easily detected and easily remedied. Flight Tests should always be conducted with a parachute. After all, you are testing an original, never before flown aircraft, and its unknowns, to verify all its limitations, and its structural, aerodynamic and aeroelastic envelope as compared to the prototype, as a minimum. Therefore, the red line speed is specified for a definite purpose and is determined by many dynamic factors. For most aircraft, do not ever exceed it, because the airframe will probably / definitely be damaged. Composite aircraft are usually well overbuilt, so the flutter you may experience will probably be flight control flutter. But note: You may determine during your flight tests that your aircraft red line will be a little higher than the sample owners manual states, as evidenced by NASA wind tunnel results for other canards and personal experience (see below), but you will probably be hard pressed to get your bird much faster than the published MK-IV Vne because of a fixed prop, and your great desire of not wanting to overspeed your engine and / or prop. Your pucker factor may get up to warp 10, also, hearing that engine scream, limiting you. If you are not up for it, there's no need to test your huevos - there's no shame in staying alive. 220 MPH IAS is plenty fast. The magic conservative 220 number may have be chosen because of the engine and fixed prop used. So, as Larry Schuler and others have pointed out, you are the manufacturer and test pilot of your one-of-a-kind aircraft and must validate your construction. Vne for your aircraft will be what you determine it to be. Don't just accept a 220 MPH Vne until you test it - it may be lower, or higher. The FAA puts out a good Advisory Circular (#90-89A) about test flying your aircraft (I've mentioned this before). Get with your local EAA Flight Advisor before first flight. During your test flights, expand your flight envelope by creeping up on the Vne in 5 KNT increments - your plane may flutter at 100 MPH IAS. Do a damn good job balancing your ailerons and elevator - you'll be glad you did. As you all now know, the tendency for flutter, a type of aeroelastic resonance, is minimized by static and possibly dynamic balancing of the control surfaces, and by making sure the control surface linkage is stiff and without free play. Info: * For certification every aircraft must be dived to a speed equal to The Design Dive Speed (Vd), which is Vd = Vne/0.9; * If memory serves, the Vari-EZE was flutter tested by NASA to 400 to 450 knots; * The Long-EZ was tested for the Army in a flying quality study; * The BD-5 was tested by NASA for the Air Force to Mach 1; * I personnally have flight tested canards to 250 KNTS IAS. Someone asked: > . . . . How comfortable do you feel flying at speeds above Vne?< Normally it's an unnecessary risk and should never be done. Depends on who and how the Vne was determined. See above. HTH. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 Shipping Address: 1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace Conversion: Allowed Original-Encoded-Information-Types: ( IA5-Text); Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited Alternate-Recipient: Allowed Date: 27 Nov 1996 10:19:49 -0700 From: "Stagl, John" Subject: COZY: Cozy Builders Being new at this, I have all of the easy questions. At what time do you call for FAA inspection? I've heard talk of inspecting parts before close out. Are there multiple inspections through out the building process? Is there a form I should file with the FAA now? John Stagl Newby Bulkheads and fusilage sides Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:26:05 -0500 From: "David R. Kuechenmeister" Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Builders At 12:19 PM -0500 11/27/96, Stagl, John wrote: >Being new at this, I have all of the easy questions. At what time do you >call for FAA inspection? I've heard talk of inspecting parts before close >out. Are there multiple inspections through out the building process? > >Is there a form I should file with the FAA now? These truly are easy questions. The FAA only wants to see the finished product anymore. The EAA Tech counsellors can be valuable at the intermediate stages. What you should do with the FAA is to call the FSDO near you and ask for a packet that they have for homebuilders. This contains the latest AC something or other about experimental amateur built certification. They sent out a bunch of blank forms for me, too. Good luck with the project. Dave -- David R. Kuechenmeister Long-EZ #779 (770)528-7738 Atlanta, Georgia From: "James E. Marker" Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Builders Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:52:09 -0500 > From: David R. Kuechenmeister > To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Builders > Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 1:26 PM > <> > >Is there a form I should file with the FAA now? <> > This > contains the latest AC something or other about experimental amateur built > certification. They sent out a bunch of blank forms for me, too. <> The information pack you need is AC 20-27D "Registering Experimental Aircraft." Don't wait 'till the last second they sometimes don't have any laying around and have to get it from somewhere? Good luck & good flying! Jim... ========================================================================== Jim Marker - jemstone@csra.net - http://www.csra.net/jemstone Dad of Jacob (May 94), Kassidy, Zachary, Skyler (Triplets - Nov 95). University of Illinois - Nuclear Engineering 1990 Desert Shield/Storm Vet - XVIII Airborne Corps - Dragon Brigade COZY Mark IV - Serial Number 0581 - Building Chapter 3. Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:07:19 -0500 From: Jim Hocut Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy Builders "Stagl, John" wrote: > >Being new at this, I have all of the easy questions. At what time do you >call for FAA inspection? I've heard talk of inspecting parts before close >out. Are there multiple inspections through out the building process? A couple other's already answered this, but I figure I'll add my 1/2 cent worth (inflation is hell). If you're not already in a local EAA chapter you really need to look up the chapter nearest you and get involved. There will be people there who can help you with all kinds of problems, and they'll really be glad to give you a little on the job training. Before I got going on my Cozy I helped build two Velocity wings, which was great education as well as a confidence booster. As someone already mentioned, you owe it to yourself to take advantage of EAA's Tech Counselor program. A tech counselor is someone who's either built an aircraft or is a licensed A&P, and they specialize by aircraft type (wood, composite, metal, etc.), plus if they can't answer a question they almost certainly can get ahold of someone who can. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 11:30:02 -0500 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: COZY: composite basics book over the t-giving holiday, i read the first 9 chapters of andrew marshall's book, "composite basics" (available from wicks and as&s). so far, the book is excellent: highly recommended reading. --- bil kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard From: garfield@pilgrimhouse.com (Garfield) Subject: Re: COZY: composite basics book Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 17:20:23 GMT Organization: Pilgrim House On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 11:30:02 -0500, william l kleb wrote: >over the t-giving holiday, i read the first 9 chapters of >andrew marshall's book, "composite basics" (available >from wicks and as&s). > >so far, the book is excellent: highly recommended reading. Anyone thinking about buying this essential book, be sure you are being shipped the 4th EDITION (yellow). 'Aircraft Screwed' was trying to pawn off 3rd editions with 'addendum' sheets for quite a while. Caveat Emptor. Garfield (just another reason to just say no to ASS & use Wicks instead!) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:36:55 -0500 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Landing Gear Fairings In a message dated 96-12-02 22:04:58 EST, 103235.1336@compuserve.com (Edmond A. Richards) writes: << At first I was very surprised and about couldnt believe there was no instructions on how to do this. But as you move through the project you will find MANY other details that are "left to the builders discretion". >> I found the same thing. Nat does a super job of covering the important stuff and 99% of the remainder. I've noticed that the plans seem a bit weak on some ofthe items that go into finishing (i.e. fairings, upholstery, etc.). I haven't looked at this as a problem in that as I've gone through the building process I've become much more knowlegable about the building techniques and can usually figure things out. For those items that remain problematic I've fallen back on friends, Nat and this forum. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 DFINN7971@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:27:45 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: COZY: Re: Max Weight Phillip Johnson wrote: >I was browsing through your web page and I came across the >max weight criteria for your aircraft and the cozy MK IV. I notice that >your max weight is 100lbs greater than the cozy yet, as I understand >it, the AeroCanard is based on the same design. >Have you done something special to the AeroCanard or >is Nat being over conservative? > What is your max landing weight? We set our gross weight what I felt I was a max operation in the worse conditions that I could produce. 95 degrees, 4000 ft den. alt. at a ramp weight of 2150 lbs. and a CG of 97. It took 2700 ft to rotate the 147" canard at 68 knots. The main wing flew at 3000 ft. I had 800 to 1000 ft VSI to 10,000 ft. Landing speeds were 10 knots faster at those weights (about 80 knots on touch down). I can live with that at the runway that I use (4000 ft long) If I had shorter runways than a lighter gross would be operated. 2150 lbs is our max landing weight. I also have Cleveland Cwb199-133x Wheels and brakes. 15-600-6 tires. Static capacity of 2500# insted of Nat's 1260#. I have no stopping problem AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 phone/fax 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com NEW homepage address: http://www.binary.net/aerocad Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:20:47 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@kan.lmcda.lmco.com (phillip johnson) Subject: COZY: Re: Max Weight Jeff Russell wrote, in response to a direct request for information by me: From PJ > What is your max landing weight? Response by JR> We set our gross weight what I felt I was a max operation in the worse conditions that I could produce. 95 degrees, 4000 ft den. alt. at a ramp weight of 2150 lbs. and a CG of 97. It took 2700 ft to rotate the 147" canard at 68 knots. The main wing flew at 3000 ft. I had 800 to 1000 ft VSI to 10,000 ft. Landing speeds were 10 knots faster at those weights (about 80 knots on touch down). Thanks Jeff that was the answer I was hoping for. Nat never responds to requests like that, other than just do as the spec says. Again,many thanks. Phillip Johnson Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:48:53 -0500 From: AlWick@aol.com Subject: COZY: First flight prep I'm a little over 2 years from completing my Cozy MkIV. It seems a bit ironic that I have never been in any sort of canard aircraft. In fact the fastest plane I've been in is my Cessna 150 (excluding commercial jets). Just got my ticket few months ago and am trying to gain valuable experience in 150, but obviously only so much of that is transferable to canard. Anyone coming up to north Oregon in next few months? I would absolutely be thrilled if I could get a ride in canard. Of course would be willing to share expenses, provide housing, whatever. I work at non-aviation business 1000 feet from KTTD airport (Troutdale). Also, what type of aircraft should I seek if I sell my 150? Something that will better prepare me for Cozy flights. What are the key differences ...flying speed, type of control stick, landing perspective? It's tough being new to this flying thing. Would appreciate advice. Thanks for your thoughts. -al Date: Thu, 19 Dec 96 15:57:29 EST From: MISTER@neesnet.com Subject: COZY: Cozy First Flight Prep Al Wick asked: " what type of aircraft should I seek if I sell my 150? Something that will better prepare me for Cozy flights. What are the key differences ...flying speed, type of control stick, landing perspective?" My EAA flight advisor told me that the Grumman Tiger would offer similar speed as a Cozy or Long EZE. I can't personally vouch for this. My experience is with a 3 place 150hp Cozy. Obviously, the Cozy is different than a C150. It climbs faster and lands faster. This isn't a problem and you shouldn't have too much trouble getting acclimated if you are proficient in the Cessna. What I found most different is that with a canard pusher airplane, you don't have any propwash over the wing with the elevator. Unlike a C150, where you can lift the nose off very soon after starting your takeoff roll, the canard won't lift the nose off till you have built up considerable speed (60-70 kts). Of course, while this speed is building you are steering with the brakes and rudders. Steering this way is different too. The high speed taxi tests will get you conditioned for this aspect. I found the approach and landing to be quite conventional, albeit fast. I think the "fly it on" landing technique makes landing a Cozy easier than landing a C172. The side stick controller was very easy for me to get used to. I'm left handed and fly from the left seat. I don't know if a right hander might find it harder to assimilate. These are truly nice flying airplanes. Hope this helps, Bob Misterka N342RM Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:14:37 -0600 (CST) From: csmith@siue.edu (Curt Smith) Subject: Re: COZY: First flight prep Al, I'm building a MKIII and put about 400 hours on my Varieze before I sold it. Recently bought an American Yankee to stay current and find the approach and T/O speeds similar to the EZ. The free castoring steering is also the same. All in all a good choice and you should be able to find one for the same price you could sell your 150 for. Curt Smith >Also, what type of aircraft should I seek if I sell my 150? Something that >will better prepare me for Cozy flights. What are the key differences >...flying speed, type of control stick, landing perspective? >It's tough being new to this flying thing. Would appreciate advice. >Thanks for your thoughts. >-al > > Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:43:56 -0500 From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com Subject: COZY: First flight prep The best experience for a new plane is to fly many planes. I also enjoy switching from left to right seat. The hardest part for us spam can drivers is contolling speed. The EZ's like to go. Spam cans drop and slow easy. My best experience to date (aside from EZ time) has been an RV-6a. It is very light on the stick, and requires planning to lose altitude without being at red-line at the runway threshold. Try to find a variety of planes, and have fun. Steve Blank, Still building....Cozy MK IV #36