Cozy Doors, Velocity styled?

[Joe Patterson]

I have not purchased any plans, however I have received a video, and information package from Nat Puffer. I am near the "Ready to Purchase" phase of building an aircraft from plans.

 

I have found most of the Forums-Chat interesting.(some of it confrontational).....Coming from a very abusive family, I am totally not into confrontaion.

 

I would like to thank all of you that have posted helpful links and information for "New Builders" (me). I would also like to thank those that have build web-pages documenting "The Build".

 

Has anyone ever added Velocity styled doors? Or have you heard of anyone doing this?

[Jon Matcho]

Originally posted by NativeSpirit

I am near the "Ready to Purchase" phase of building an aircraft from plans.

Spirit, welcome to the club -- you're in. Personally, I found buying the plans just another step to my affirmation to build. The next step was reading them and updating with newsletter changes and updates. The next is planning. When it warms I will finally be building, and faced with 1,000 more steps.

 

Originally posted by NativeSpirit

I have found most of the Forums-Chat interesting.(some of it confrontational).....Coming from a very abusive family, I am totally not into confrontaion.

This does seem to happen here much more than on the COZY mailing list. Being the admin here, it does concern me. I am in the process of putting some guidelines together which will hopefully help. The other thought I have is to create a discussion area which can only be accessed by 'senior' members, which would be monitored for abuse by a couple moderators (but don't ask me to define 'senior' right now). At present, not a single message is moderated, as is evident from some of the messages you see.

 

Everyone, please write your e-mails knowing that you will someday meet the person on the other end. Write as though you're talking to them in person, and that in reality, they are not your 'arch enemy'.

 

Originally posted by NativeSpirit

Has anyone ever added Velocity styled doors? Or have you heard of anyone doing this

This has certainly been done, but not too often. Topics of doors and canopy raise good discussion and I'm sure someone will chime in here with additional info.

 

Welcome again!

[Sjoslin]

I remember reading that Phil Johnson did a variation of the Velocity Gull wing door. Here's the old post from the mail list archive:

 

http://kgarden.com/cozy/arch/ch18.htm#msg97/6

 

and his site:

 

http://www.geocities.com/plmjohnson/

 

Stewart

[Joe Patterson]

Jon & Stewart,Thanks for the replys.

I felt sure I could figure out a way add to the "building plans".

 

Unmonitored-Confrontation

I will be more cautious as to what I say. I chuckeled at the chat that was confrontational.All said and done I learned a lot from it.

 

I suppose a person who thinks they can build their own airplane must be a strong, forceful, and oppinionated soul.

 

I surely didn't want to get anyone in trouble. Let them go at it, Jon. This is a fantastic forum for "Newbies".

 

Front seats, seem to have some sort of Beam/Bulkhead, to lean back on.

 

What is this used for? I would like seats that could be made to recline, for those days when waiting for rain to clear.

[dust]

The seats are reclined at 45 degree angle and can be made very plush and comfy.

 

enjoy the build

 

 

Mike

[LargePrime]

You should really see the canopy.

It is MUCH better than any sort of Gull Wing. It might not look as sexy, but it is way easier to pack, get in, and out of. And, I belive, half the weight.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by LargePrime

It is MUCH better than any sort of Gull Wing. It might not look as sexy, but it is way easier to pack, get in, and out of.

 

While there may be some advantages to the canopy (and I LOVE the visibility), just about the only thing I _don't_ like about my plane is how much of a pain in the neck it is to get in and out, especially for the passengers (front and rear). Gull wing doors and folding seats would be MUCH easier - I've tried on a Velocity, and it's nice.

 

Everything's a tradeoff - get good visibility, maybe less weight, but the fit isn't great, it's a bit noisier, and getting in and out is a pain.

 

With respect to the reclining seat question, the seatback and headrest support structure are part of the fuselage structure, and (at least according to Nat) are very important in the torsional stiffness of the fuselage. I would tend to agree, and that's NOT a change that I would make to my plane.

[Jim Sower]

Originally posted by Marc Zeitlin

... how much of a pain in the neck it is to get in and out ...

Stop Marc!! You're breakin' my heart! I've been selling the Cozy for all I'm worth to the wife, swearing that a forward opening canopy is nearly as sexy as gull wing doors and she'll really be able to get into it OK. I've got her about 25% convinced that the performance makes for a good trade off, and with forward opening canopy and nose lift she'll be able to get in and out nearly as easy as the Velocity. She HATED the Long-EZ, having to get boosted up the strake to get in the back seat. When she saw those gullwing doors on the Velocity, all conversation ceased. That was it. Now I want something fast (and finally build the whole thing) and she gets balky. Anyway, I guess I'll just build it and work on her with the comfort and speed aspects and pray for rain on the ingress/egress:)

 

What, exactly, is the toughest part of getting into the pilot's seat? I figure we'll both be in the exact same boat with forward opening canopy. I would suspect lowering herself into the seat would probably be the toughest part. Maybe a little motorized platform that slides up and down rails on the seatback:D

 

I really need to come up with something ... Jim S.

[dust]

You bretter be good or i will send THAT post to your wife, she needs a what !!!!!!!

 

enjoy the build

 

 

Mike

[CBarber]

Not to be confrontational, but the gull wing doors on my Velocity are not very heavy. I don't know how they compare to a full canopy esp. since they do not include a windscreen, but I would not think that it would be a big issue. Kinda apples to....well, that is a another topic.

 

I also have had other Cozy flyers tell me that they considered the Cozy a pain to get in and out of and to pack (I assumed from the statements that it was difficult to pack leaning over the strake). They were not bithing, just trying to be informative as we compared planes.

 

I do like the fact that my Velocity seats are adustable and Velocity offers a reclining seat option or you can add/build your own. It is my uderstanding that corvette seats work well (don't think they recline).

 

The only real issue I have found getting in my project is that it is a little high, but all that is required is to sit on the seat sidways and then twist and swing your legs up on over into the plane. It is more difficult getting in the back seat but seemingly not much worse then getting in the back seat of some two door cars....other then the height. The height may actually make packing the back seat somewhat easier as you don't really need to lean into the plane. You just fold the front seats forward and load into the back seat, not much leaning involved.

 

Of course most of this is personal preference (and my project is far from complete) and not really better or worse, just different. I have to admit, I really like the gull wing doors. There may be more practicle ways to do it such as front hinged doors that could stay closed by the airflow if a latch failed (Velocity has added a additional secondary safety latch to prevent in flight door opening. I believe someone on the forum, Jim Sower??, had one come open....not good, in a Cozy or a Velocity)

 

The Velocity has a center keel that is part of the structure (even though my model has it "cut down" for extra room with even more reinforcment. I have yokes instead of a center keel stick). The keel is part of several structual reinforcments that allows for the gull wing doors. I would think that is may be difficult to duplicate in a Cozy....but then, I am not an engineer.

 

And yes, one of the reasons I really like the doors is, to me, they look really kewl As always, YMMV.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

www.LoneStarVelocity.com

[Joe Patterson]

The seats are reclined at 45 degree angle .........

 

I have only seen pictures on the web, but I would not have thought they were reclined that much. I have tried to catch some "zzz's"while waiting out a storm in my 1959 Cessna 172.....Immpossible........

 

Can one sleep in this seat. ( While opn the ground of course.)

 

While there may be some advantages to the canopy

 

I would imagine the view is spectacular,however;I was thinking the canopy would have to have some sort of sun shield, at least for long cross-countries.

 

Maybe a little motorized platform that slides up and down rails on the seatback

 

I was trying to come up with the same sort of thing, with a swiveling seat, Just sit down throw your legs in and lower...... but for myself ,of course. I ain't about to say that about my wife(1/3Cherokee, 1/3 Choctaw, 1/3 French). Shoot, she could jump in, from the ground.

 

If I were to get caught saying what Jim S said,I wouldn't need side by side seating.

 

very important in the torsional stiffness of the fuselage

 

It is my understanding that Velocity has added a beam made of Carbon Fiber, for this exact reason, as well as carbon fiber in the overhead part of cabin.

 

It is nice to see oppinions from others. ....and.......... After reading and looking at some of your web-sites regarding building of aircraft, you know more than myself.

 

What I need, is a ride in a Cozy. Anyone live anywhere close to Taos, NM. Or Maybe Santa Fe,NM........until I sell my Cessna 172 , close can be 250 miles

[CBarber]

The Velocity does have a sheet of carbon in the ceiling between the top of the doors. Also, there are four carbon beams around the door openings. One beam at the front opening of each door and one in the back of each door opening. The carbon beams are also used as wire conduits for overhead switches.

 

I was under the impression that the carbon beams were chiefly for structual reinforment (and I am sure they play a significant role in this). However, I was told by the man who delivers Velocity kits for the factory (Jim Fast) and is building his own and seems to have some pretty good insight to the Velocity Inc. inner structure, that the beams main purpose is to act as a safety cage in case of a mishap. Of course, they still really seem structual <g> FWIW.

 

Chris

[cncdoc]

I must be getting dense in my old age. Being stuck in a hotel room for 4 weeks doesn't help. But it does give me time to research the internet and read interesting stories like the ones found in EZ squandron's story section. People taking trans-atlantic trips to Europe in Long ez along with the preparation and execution of such, was quite interesting reading. This led me to a quandry over how all these "Z" nose-dipping aircraft got to be so named. (Varieze = very easy to build) (Long-EZ = longer nose than a verieze) (Cozy = Copilot EZ as in side by side) but that's my take on it. My original intent in starting in this Cozy build was because of the ability to load more personnel so they could share the fun. As I read Jim's post I couldn't help but think of an INjection seat (the opposite of an EJECTion seat) which would place the injected (victim) into the correct seat of a Cozy without the prescribed gymnastics required of those who would occupy the rear seat. But I would attribute that fanciful thought to a scene in the James Bond movie "Goldfinger" which was playing on one of the 300 channels here at the hotel (they don't even have the Discovery Wings channel - what a cheap outfit!)

I was priveleged to be able to be "strapped in" in John Slade's Cozy (thank you John for the tour!) and I must say that barring a crane hoist and a safety harness or climbing gear, there is no way, gull wing doors or not, for a woman, in a dress to modestly and gracefully seat herself in the rear seat of any of these Canard type aircraft. But, the downside of the exercise is those of us with LB (Large buttocks) may be pushing the envelope somewhat when attempting entry into the cockpit at ANY angle.

I would like to emphasize, once again, the importance of visiting a mostly finished Cozy aircraft to get a physically correct idea of where you "fit" in the whole scheme of things. As you stand back with a contemplative pose, think of the benefits of the "plans" canopy, the Velocity "gull wing" doors, a "fireman's pole" or whatever your scheme (remember: It's "experimental") for entry/exit, and picture just how much modification, divergence from plans, re-engineering and testing it will take for a slight benefit in entering the aircraft in a somewhat civilized fashion (exit requires no civility...I always "jump" out....doesn't everyone?)

Of course when dealing with one's spouse, one most always consider the outcome of a course contrary to the will of that one and make compensation, even upon matters requiring major efforts upon the smallest of trivialities, for these can and have changed the course of entire nations and quite possibly (in Jim's case and maybe mine) could cause my aircraft to have gullwing doors, a vanity mirror and be painted purple.

 

Tongue placed firmly in cheek....

 

Kevin

[LargePrime]

If you watch the cozy tape there is an interview with nat and his wife. They happen to be loading the plane and readying it for takeoff.

 

Nat probably has a very advanced technique, but he and Shirley made it look very easy to load ,enter, and sit down in.

 

Compared to what I have had to do, it's a piece of cake.

[Joe Patterson]

I have found my answer, and then some..............

 

Thanks for the thoughts expressed in this "Thread".

 

I also found this in Newsletter #75...............8/27/01

Builders,

 

Gull-wing doors are not a good idea. They are not a good idea on the Velocity either. I have heard Danny Maher (original Velocity designer) criticize the doors. To create the gull-wing doors, the upper longerons have to be cut. This destroys the torsional and bending moment path from the main wing to the canard. The effect is the main wing "leads" the canard in a turn. The torsional and bending stiffness cannot be replaced because the stiffness is a cubic function which depends on the distance from the outer most skins. A center trunion like in the Velocity can help, but cannot make up for the loss. IMHO, because of the overall differences between a Cozy and a Velocity, gull-wing doors on a Cozy would be dangerous. The entry/exit can be made comfortably with the powered nose lift.

 

Paul Krasa

Long EZ

 

 

 

Marc.........Seems exactly like what you were saying.

 

Thanks again for the input.

Joseph Spirit

[rhofacker]

I have found my answer, and then some..............

 

Thanks for the thoughts expressed in this "Thread".

 

I also found this in Newsletter #75...............8/27/01

Builders,

 

Gull-wing doors are not a good idea. They are not a good idea on the Velocity either. I have heard Danny Maher (original Velocity designer) criticize the doors. To create the gull-wing doors, the upper longerons have to be cut. This destroys the torsional and bending moment path from the main wing to the canard. The effect is the main wing "leads" the canard in a turn. The torsional and bending stiffness cannot be replaced because the stiffness is a cubic function which depends on the distance from the outer most skins. A center trunion like in the Velocity can help, but cannot make up for the loss. IMHO, because of the overall differences between a Cozy and a Velocity, gull-wing doors on a Cozy would be dangerous. The entry/exit can be made comfortably with the powered nose lift.

 

Paul Krasa

Long EZ

 

 

 

Marc.........Seems exactly like what you were saying.

 

Thanks again for the input.

Joseph Spirit

 

Even so. The Velocity has the easiest ingress/egress of any of the canard types. Yes, it was necessary to reinforce some fuselage structure. But the results are worth the effort.

[Jon Matcho]

The Velocity has the easiest ingress/egress of any of the canard types.

This cannot be denied. After getting in and out of a Cozy for several stops, and not trying to scratch anything or step where I shouldn't, I couldn't help but thinking about what it would take to retrofit a door into the existing design.

 

My inner engineer thinks this can indeed be done. What do you think?

[rhofacker]

This cannot be denied. After getting in and out of a Cozy for several stops, and not trying to scratch anything or step where I shouldn't, I couldn't help but thinking about what it would take to retrofit a door into the existing design.

 

My inner engineer thinks this can indeed be done. What do you think?

Yeah, I gotta agree. My inner engineer thinks it can be done too. The trick will be doing it without increasing the weight or decreasing fuselage strength. Remember loads are carried in the skins and we're talking about cutting big holes in the side skins. I'm still doodling back of the cocktail napkin stuff and mulling over load paths... I believe that such a mod would be a great interest to many Cozy builders if it were well engineered. Perhaps those of us who are serious about the concept could kick arond some ideas and ultimately share the cost of getting some real structural analysis done. This certainly isn't something I'd want to "eye ball" engineer

 

One of the side benifits of my noodling is a "roll over" structure that would help protect your upper body in the event of flipping upside down after an "uncontrolled return to terra firma"

 

 

adding something like this to an already built fuselage would seem to add another order of magnitude of complexity to the problem

[Jon Matcho]

The trick will be doing it without increasing the weight...

I think we'd have to accept extra weight on this one, but at least it would be forward of CG. If flying solo, you just won't need so much ballast in the nose.

 

 

... or decreasing fuselage strength.

Yes, the design would need to maintain or exceed fuselage strength while adding the least amount of weight possible. I'd err on the side of strength. I have a concept, similar to a submarine door or pressurized airplane door. I saw the Lancair system at Sun-n-Fun and got some ideas. If your door has hardpoints all around, you can pull the fuselage butt up against it to restore the structure integrity. Check out this link for a simple example of a "push" system, but a design that could be made industrial strength.

 

 

Perhaps those of us who are serious about the concept could kick arond some ideas and ultimately share the cost of getting some real structural analysis done.

Now there's an idea! Sign me up.

 

 

One of the side benifits of my noodling is a "roll over" structure that would help protect your upper body in the event of flipping upside down after an "uncontrolled return to terra firma"

This has been done on Long-EZs at least, and something many consider, including myself. Check out these sources:

• Construction plans for a composite roll over structure for a Long EZ, by Rutan Aircraft Factory
• Bill Allen's Long EZ rollbar (metail)
• Art Bianconi's Long EZ (composite)
• Considerations by Wayne Hicks

adding something like this to an already built fuselage would seem to add another order of magnitude of complexity to the problem

Perhaps with the rollover structure. With the door, I actually think it would be best to retrofit near/after chapter 8, after building the fuselage to plans.

[rhofacker]

Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page

 

While I really like the gullwing door for ultimate sex appeal I haven't rulled out a side hinged door like an automobile. The instrument panel bulkhead would make a convenient hard point for the hinges, no lift struts would be required, etc., etc... we need to think and talk about it some more.

 

I think you're on to the right time to incorporate the mod: My thinking was to cut the fuselage sides along the forward edge of the seat back, along the top of the bottom longeron, and along the aft edge of the instrumnet panel bulkhead. The thinking is to keep the seat backs and front bulkhead as part of the load bearing structure bonded to the fuselage sides. The down side of this concept is rear seat entry

 

I'm also not opposed to a center spine of some sort. It makes a convenient place for wiring, control push/torque tubes, and the like. Both my wife and I are not terribly BOB (broad of b$##) I'm 5'5" and my wife is 5"0" so we could afford to give up a little bit of cockpit width.

 

More Thoughts???

[Jon Matcho]

I have Uli Wolter's plans, and am planning to do the forward-opening canopy, but likely with a per-plans side-opening canopy for the rear.

 

 

My thinking was to cut the fuselage sides along the forward edge of the seat back, along the top of the bottom longeron, and along the aft edge of the instrumnet panel bulkhead. The thinking is to keep the seat backs and front bulkhead as part of the load bearing structure bonded to the fuselage sides.

Similar thinking here -- don't touch the bulkheads.

 

 

The down side of this concept is rear seat entry

For me, rear seat access for passengers isn't a high priority. At best, I'm expecting my kids back there until they're off to college. After that, it's going to be cargo space (as well as per-plans passenger space).

 

 

I'm also not opposed to a center spine of some sort. It makes a convenient place for wiring, control push/torque tubes, and the like.

This is the velocity design as well as the SQ2000 design, as far as I can tell. You can ask Paul Lee here about the SQ2000 -- he's soooo close to first flight.

 

Both the Velocity and SQ2000 are kitplanes, which is beyond my budget right now. I've decided to build a Cozy, and while I will consider cutting a hole in the side of the fuselage (and replacing it when I'm done ), I would not consider engineering a spine through the center -- that would be too much work. The hole in the side is a lot of work too, but I'm not looking to change any of the control systems and to keep the design as-is as much as possible.

 

I am only in the conceptual stage with this right now, which has me looking at what it would take to cut a foot+ of longeron and to be able to replace it without losing any strength. As you also point out, forces on the side is another concern. How about reinforced or stronger longerons -- assuming the hole (door) is replaced to allow 100+% of strength to be restored relative to the original plans specifications?

 

Ready? Begin.

[rhofacker]

I am only in the conceptual stage with this right now, which has me looking at what it would take to cut a foot+ of longeron and to be able to replace it without loosing any strength. As you also point out, forces on the side is another concern. How about reinforced or stronger longerons -- assuming the hole (door) is replaced to allow 100+% of strength to be restored relative to the original plans specifications?

 

Ready? Begin.

If you mean "replace it" by "closing the door" I'd worry about adequately transfering loads through the latches and hinges. I am still thinking along the lines of some sort of structural canopy bow (similiar to the roll over structure already mentioned) and strengthened turtle deck/cabin top. The bottom longerons remain in tact, the bulkheads remain in tact, and fuselage bending and torsion loads are carried around the door cutout to the aft fuselage. the door itself would be "non-structural"

 

I'll try to describe my "cocktail napkin sketch". Looking at a top view of the fuselage. consider an "X" with one end of the legs attached to the top longerons just forward of the front bulkhead and the back legs of the "X" attached at or near the seat bulkhead. This aft attach point would have to be "adjusted" to minimize passenger engress/egress obstruction and to maximaxe pilot/copilot side view. Looking at a front view, the structure would arch up over the cockpit. The "X" structure could be fabricated by laying it up inside the canpoy just like the previously described Long Eze roll over bar. Pop it loose from the canopy for installation on the fuselage, install the canopy (at least semi permanently) and cut the sides and canopy to make the door...

 

Simple, Right? knock it out in a weekend (not)

 

The devil is in the details

[Jon Matcho]

If you mean "replace it" by "closing the door" I'd worry about adequately transfering loads through the latches and hinges.

I mean it more like "close and lock-down the hatch". While there would be hinges, the hinges would not be structural. The entire door would have a stiff edge, allowing a lock-down mechanism to pull the surrounding fuselage back to it. Perhaps the entire door with my design should be made of aluminum, or reinforced with aluminum ribs, or some other VERY stiff composite laminate.

 

 

I am still thinking along the lines of some sort of structural canopy bow (similiar to the roll over structure already mentioned) and strengthened turtle deck/cabin top. The bottom longerons remain in tact, the bulkheads remain in tact, and fuselage bending and torsion loads are carried around the door cutout to the aft fuselage. the door itself would be "non-structural"

Our thoughts are nearly the same with the exception that my door would be put back into the structure to make it whole again.

 

 

I'll try to describe my "cocktail napkin sketch".

I actually think I see what you have in mind -- an X-shaped rollbar. That's interesting, but it strikes me as needing to be built-up with a serious amount of aluminum. Steel in that structure might be too heavy. Finally, I really like sitting in the Cozy without a roof overhead, and pulling it down when you're ready.

 

How about you draw yours and I'll draw mine, and then we'll both get pounced at once... ?

[rhofacker]

Cool

 

I'll go have a few more cocktails to get some more cocktail napkins for drawing on.

 

Try to post the sketches here

 

then put on my flak jacket and watch for "incoming"

 

[Jon Matcho]

Perhaps those of us who are serious about the concept could kick arond some ideas and ultimately share the cost of getting some real structural analysis done.

We could setup a community design project, similar to the premise at www.openaero.org where the vision is for a group to design entire planes. The same concepts apply for aggressive modifications such as the door we're talking about here.

 

Once all is done, we could sell the plans to other builders to recoup our upfront costs. The way I see a prototype coming together is:

• Get an engineer involved and establish the design
• Retrofit the design into a project that has ONLY finished the main fuselage (Chapter 7)
• Document plan changes, put on shelf
• Complete build of aircraft
• Prove air worthiness
• Offer plans to others

A retrofit into an existing fuselage strikes me as the best option, potentially becoming the standard for how such a modification would be performed. There are many structural options, and to name a few:

• Overhead support structure
• Velocity-like center spar
• Internal support structure (similar to #1, but built into the fuselage front itself)
• Localized structural reinforcement

Design criteria to consider:

• Must work with absolutely minimal risk
• Must be minimalistic in design -- we're not designing an entire Velocity
• Must be reproduceable for other Cozy builders

This would be a big project to consider, but one that I am very interested in.