Super Cozy

[LargePrime]

So if I am new at this I am probably gonna ask how could one make a Super Cozy.

 

But I probably wont come right out and say it. I have so they can just read this.

 

If "The Great White Father" (Burt) were to do it now, (Which he wont so dont even ask) what do you think he would do differently?

[Jim Sower]

Originally posted by LargePrime

what do you think he would do differently?

Try to make it lighter I would guess - and perhaps simpler ....

[mplafleur]

What's your definition of "super"?

[LargePrime]

The intent was to explore what he would do today. I was thinking thoes exploring this aircraft might wonder about that and could be pointed here.

 

I think (and consider the source) burt would build a more efficient craft at higher speads. I think he would do a four place. I am pretty sure it would be a canard. I think he might even consider alernate engines to build it around.

 

Mostly I think he might get a kick out of "one upping" vans and the glasair/velocity crowd.

[ekisbey]

He might make it a three-place, and design it to be carried underneath a much larger aircraft to high altitude. Then he'd probably put a rocket engine in it and break the sound barrier, mostly to prove that he could, followed shortly thereafter by short jaunts into sub-orbital space...

[David Pierce]

The only super size cozy that I have heard of is the one shown on the "unofficial cozy website" and is known as the King Cozy. I don't think it has been finished, but looked super sized to me.

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/1165/king_kozy.html

 

Good Luck!

[John Slade]

Jim's right, Burt would make it lighter and simpler - because that's Burt. Is that what you really want to know? When thinking of a "super" cozy, many builders lean towards luxury, size and power. I'd like to see a pressurized twin design, but the Defiant isnt it. We've discussed this here before. Any "improved" design, even if it were to be laid out for us as well as the Cozy is, would certainly involve considerably more effort for us homebuilders to finish one. You've probably heard of the 80/20 rule - 80% of homebuilt starts dont finish. With the Cozy I'd guess that its more like 60/40. Just about anyone can build one of these babies. A "super" Cozy, if there was one, would probably be closer to 95/5.

 

When I throw my leather seats up in the air, they come back down quite quickly, but so would 250 horses.

 

With a few "minor" exceptions I think the best way is to keep to the simple track, built it, fly it, then once you're one of the 40%, add improvements when you know what matters and how to do it.

[HM Andersen]

What Burt would do??????????

The most common mod. I think concerns the canopy.

I noticed a 3 place in Denmark ,where the view has gained and the access has become better so has the shoulder space.

www.kzclub.dk/Rally2000DS/planes/index_8.htm

Seems like there is some tension in the fuselage side above the landing gear.

Helge

[Spodman]

Wow! That looks brilliant. I've searched around a bit and found a few references to Christensen Opus 3 and Opus-3d and some more pictures but no details. Looks like it has a gull door for the back seat, I can't see any other way of getting in there... A bit less sun on the bald spot. I read one claim it is a Long-ez derivative, but it looks like a cleaned-up copy of the Cozy, even more so than some others.

 

Does anybody know if its plans-built or a kit?

[HM Andersen]

This plane is not really plans or kit build.

Kai Christensen also made the design.This is his third homebuilt.

The first I believe was a Jodel ,nr two was a Long Eze.

I talked to him once at the Stauning fly in.

It is not a Cozy but there are some similarity.The top longerons is lowered,the canopy he has pulled over a positive mold(and it is really great).It has a center stick,and he has altered the C of G to avoid ballast when flying solo.

After this picture was taken he has added an angle of attack indicator.

Believe it or not --it has got new paint.

Right there is a gullwing for the rear seat.

I heard it was built within one year.

Helge

[Jim Sower]

Originally posted by LargePrime

I think (and consider the source) burt would build a more efficient craft at higher speeds.

That's exactly what he did about 8 or 10 years ago. He called it Catbird. 5-place IIRC, tractor with IO-360. Much faster and longer range than the Defiant that had been his "personal transportation. That has since been replaced by "Boomerang".

 

I think he would do a four place.

Catbird was a really slick looking bird. John Roncz flying surfaces and quite a few innovations.

 

I am pretty sure it would be a canard.

Burt decided a long time ago that his original notion that canard airplanes are more efficient than conventional layouts was erroneous. He hasn't built a canard since (except for Proteus, which is more of a tandem wing and is much MUCH longer than any canard). He started one helluva movement with the Vari-/Long-EZ and then moved on to bigger and better things.

 

I think he might even consider alernate engines to build it around.

His Pond Racer of something over 10 years ago was designed to compete at Reno in the unlimited class and had twin Nissan 300ZX engine tricked up to over 1000 hp each. It's been argued that rotarys would have been a better choice. I talked to Mike Melville a few years ago at OSH and he noted that Burt isn't and doesn't want to be in the engine development business. He's happy and content to leave that to others and use their finished products.

 

Mostly I think he might get a kick out of "one upping" vans and the glasair/velocity crowd.

IMO he does exactly that on a pretty regular basis. Last time I was at OSH, Burt announced THREE first flights since he was there the year before. Two of them hadn't even been in the "cocktail napkin" stage the year before. He has designed, built and flown something on the order of forty airplanes since the early 70's, very damn few of which have any particular resemblance to each other or anything else he ever built (unlike the folks he might be trying to "one-up"). I think that pretty well "one-ups" everyone in the history of aviation - Van's, Glassair, Velocity folks included - along with Kelly Johnson, Marty Signorelli et al.

 

I'm satisfied that he is the most prolific, innovative engineer in the history of aviation or pretty much anything else.

[CBarber]

From my limited knowledge, it seems that Burt is most concerned about "one-upping" BURT. Greatest inovation can be improving on your previous work.

[No4]

"I'm satisfied that he is the most prolific, innovative engineer in the history of aviation or pretty much anything else."

 

Couldn't agree more Jim,

How long until the plans become available for White Knight and Spaceship 1? Now that would be fun to build in the garden shed!

__________________

 

Could you call this a "Super Cozy"?

PT6 gas turbine 1600hp

6 place pressurised

320 knots

30,000 feet ceiling

1300 nm range

 

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=2

 

AASI now own Mooney, and are hoping to bring it into production:D

[Joe Patterson]

Originally posted by LargePrime

If "The Great White Father" (Burt) were to do it now, (Which he wont so dont even ask) what do you think he would do differently?

 

Large P,

 

I just REALLT LOVE the term "Great White Father"............. Sounds kinda Native American.

 

I know hs is admired by many, but as for me, I would love him equally, as I do you.

 

 

but I do love that term.........

[Dale_R]

I'm satisfied that he is the most prolific, innovative engineer in the history of aviation or pretty much anything else.

With all due respect, "pretty much anything else" encompasses a lot - including firearms design. For prolificacy and innovative design, John M. Browning probably has a bit of an edge on Burt. ~120 distinct designs, many of which are still in production today, 70 - 110 years later ... because ... "nobody did it better".

 

Dale R.

COZY MKIV-R #1254

[Jon Matcho]

Anyone else besides me care to stand up for Thomas Alva Edison? 1,368 separate and distinct patents.

 

Let there be light.

[Carl P. Lindon]

Originally Posted by Jim Sower

I'm satisfied that he [burt Ruttan] is the most prolific, innovative engineer in the history of aviation or pretty much anything else.

 

Well certainly late but I'll throw my vote in for Isambard Kingdom Brunnel, 19th Century English Engineer of railroads, canals, steamships, bridges.... Some of his bridges still stand and support todays loads without any modifications and his railway work was ground breaking! Yes Iknow ships are a "four letter word" to most aviators but there is where technology and it's integration is showed to the greatest level anywhere IMO.

 

Besides IKB has to have had the all time best name for an engineer, no modesty possible there and in truth no need for it!!

 

Carl P. Lindon

Pre-build

[karoliina]

I would vote for Burt Rutan, in addition of doing great

aircraft designs, he is now making my dreams come true

[with SpaceShipOne and the projects that will follow after

that and also in the sense of showing to people that it can

be done, which is also very important], it is a different thing to do

spaceships than build bridges. Yes, there is complexity in

bridges and railways, but space is a completely different

issue. There is also complexity in software and also in many other

areas of engineering. But still, it is still a completely different thing

to build a spaceship than write 5 million lines of C-code.

Burt Rutan is opening the final frontier for us, he appears to believe

in the same way as I do, space is a place, not a program.

I see no bright future for NASA, the future is in the commercial

utilization of space.

 

To get back to the original issue;

What comes to Super Cozy, I think that it would be a great

idea to try to improve the design if possible - in the case if

someone competent enough could do it, meaning that the

person has enough experience in aerodynamic design. There is no

perfect design out there and there is always room for improvements.

In the case of Cozy, I would see as the most important issue

the alternative engines. Old aircraft engines (meaning Lycosaurus)

really aren't very economic and also it would be a good idea

to increase efficiency by reducing weight, by reducing aerodynamic drag

(in other words perhaps laminar profiles to all wings) and

also what I have tried with the X-plane model, with a higher power

engine, why Cozy couldn't be basic aerobatics approved, perhaps

it would be very nice change. Aerobatics approved doesn't need to

mean that it would be inefficient aerobatics plane with turbulent

profile wings, but rather an aircraft that would allow flying upside

down etc. without problems - in other words, without being perfect

for the aerobatics task, would at least allow doing it if the

pilot can do it. At least the X-plane model does

barrel rows etc. basic aerobatics without problems, why it would be so

impossible to have a version of real Cozy that would allow that as well.

Wasn't the airframe designed for very high G loading after all, actually

for even higher loading than the actual aerobatics planes?

Also I would like more clear canopy (at least bigger windows)

so that also back seat would have excellent visibility to all directions.

For example some sort of that way than it was done in the

Opie-3. And of course, I would prefer that the Super Cozy or whatever,

would fly faster than a fastest Lancair out there.

[Nathan Gifford]

The problem with the Cozy doing aerobatics is the problem with deep (main wing) stalls. Also the plane should not be flown inverted according to Nat Puffer.

[Jon Matcho]

Check out this 5+ page thread for everything you wanted to know about aerobatics in canard aircraft.

 

You can do rolls in a Cozy in X-Plane, FWIW.

[karoliina]

Both rolls and loops work fine in the X-plane model of Cozy

allthough the loops build up lots of speed.

 

But I was thinking how a canard would be able to do

aerobatics then (if we are thinking of a "Super Cozy" in other

words something that is a step further):

 

- for inverted flight: better pitch control that has authority

even in inverted flight

- aerodynamic design should allow a higher Vne. The 220 mph

Vne is very low considering that many Lancairs have higher Vne

and even higher cruise speed. As a result, the speed build up in

a loop wouldn't be that big problem.

* can someone point out why Cozy's Vne is just 220 mph, in other

words, what breaks if one flies overspeed? Airplanes that have less

strong structure have sometimes higher Vne and it makes me wonder

what is the problem with Cozy. With X-plane model, it is possible

to fly several times faster than Vne without aerodynamic problems.

But that is another thing, when the control surfaces etc. tear of.

Is the 220 mph conservative Vne, the fastest speed Nat was willing

to fly in test program or is it really the top limit where after that the

aircraft tears apart?

* I can assume that the Vne becomes a problem with the prop first

(I assume it tears apart before the structure).

* About the deep stall issue: in X-plane model the Cozy does not

deep stall if the CG is on the right place, no matter how it is flown,

inverted, straight up etc. anything goes. When the nose is pointed

straight up and the airspeed becomes zero, the nose just drops

either forwards or backwards and it is possible to recover the aircraft

after that rather easily. It would be interesting to know why

this does not match with reality, in the case in reality, if the aircraft really

always goes to deep stall if flown like that.

 

Canard itself shouldn't be directly indication that aerobatics is

impossible since many fighter jets have indeed canards (double delta

wings) such as Saab Draken (okay Draken was not good aerobatics plane

or dogfight plane) and the newer Swedish designs. People are always

suggesting a slow turbulent profile aircraft for aerobatics, but jet fighters

for example aren't that slow despite they allow aerobatic maneuvers

in dogfight. What I am thinking would be an aircraft that has

handling qualities similar to a fighter jet. It would be possible to fly

inverted etc. with no problems with very high speeds.

 

I think that capability (whilst not being ideal) for basic aerobatics would

be a safety issue too. What if you end up in the trailing vortex of a 737.

Next you say that it will never happen. But errors can happen in

real life, even if you don't do any error, someone else can do it (and

you can become the victim), and one should never say never.

If you end up upside down with an aircraft

that has no control authority to roll it back would be a very hazardous

thing and in my opinion, the control surfaces should be designed so that

in emergency situation at least, it should be possible to recover the

aircraft from ANY position (it should be designed so that it would be

possible to break away even from deep stall if that would occur, in other

words, if main wing continuously stalls, it should be possible to make the

canard stall first in an emergency situation temporarily).

 

Also a "super cozy" should have a ballistic recovery system to save

the aircraft and pilot in the case it would enter unrecoverable deep stall

if the deep stall issue is so serious as some claim. I was thinking that

instead of placing the ballast to nose, it could contain the parachute

(another good reason for the placement would be avoiding hitting the

propeller).

[Marc Zeitlin]

.... for inverted flight: better pitch control that has authority even in inverted flight....

The airfoils used on the COZY are completely wrong for inverted flight. Something more closely resembling a symmetrical airfoil would be required, and that would screw up the high speed cruise capability of the plane, as well as the current aerodynamic balance between the canard and main wing.

 

- aerodynamic design should allow a higher Vne. .....Is the 220 mph conservative Vne, the fastest speed Nat was willing to fly in test program ....

Bingo.

 

* I can assume that the Vne becomes a problem with the prop first (I assume it tears apart before the structure).

Why would you assume that?

 

* About the deep stall issue: in X-plane model the Cozy does not deep stall if the CG is on the right place,..... It would be interesting to know why this does not match with reality, in the case in reality, if the aircraft really always goes to deep stall if flown like that.

What makes you think that this doesn't match with reality? From all the testing that has been done on L.E.'s and COZY's, no aircraft that was properly built and had the CG in the correct range has ever been deep stalled, or has gotten into an unrecoverable stall.

 

...What I am thinking would be an aircraft that has handling qualities similar to a fighter jet. It would be possible to fly inverted etc. with no problems with very high speeds.

See above - you'd have to completely redesign the whole plane. Not that that's impossible, but it wouldn't be a COZY.

 

... in my opinion, the control surfaces should be designed so that in emergency situation at least, it should be possible to recover the aircraft from ANY position....

They are and it is. The COZY is capable of any positive G maneuver. I know folks that loop and roll theirs. Whatever attitude you end up in, due to whatever cause, is recoverable if your CG is within range. I'm not sure why you believe it's not.

 

 

P.S. - please stop putting carriage returns in your messages except at the end of paragraphs - the computer will insert them where it needs them - it needlessly complicates responding to your messages.

[Len Evansic]

... but jet fighters for example aren't that slow despite they allow aerobatic maneuvers in dogfight. What I am thinking would be an aircraft that has handling qualities similar to a fighter jet. It would be possible to fly inverted etc. with no problems with very high speeds....

Ah, but jet fighters are jets, and modern ones are designed to specifically be unstable in flight for better maneuvering ability. In fact, most of the fighters designed in the last fifteen years are totally uncontrollable by humans, relying instead on a bunch of embedded computers, making split second decisions to adjust the flying parameters to match the pilot's input. Forget about the CG envelope in relation to the wing surfaces, the important location is relative to the thrust.

 

What we need is a Cozy with thrust vectoring and a super-powerful jet engine. Forget the piddly one that Greg Richter put in his, we need one with afterburners! Oh, and a bunch of computers to control fully moveable canards and other control surfaces by wire. I'm sure Nat would have an opinion on this.

 

OK, now back to reality. What if someone were to work out a system that would vary the AOA of just the canard when unsafe conditions were detected? Not full fly by wire, but a wired in failsafe for something like deep stall? I just think of this because I would prefer to fly the plane down, rather than rip it apart with a parachute. It wouldn't fix some major structural problem like loosing a winglet, but it may help with a deep stall, at least in varying the AOA until it catches flight again. And it may help with obtaining a higher Vne, by decreasing the canard AOA at high speeds. I know that the plane isn't designed to do bad things with a properly positioned CG, but just in case.

 

-- Len

[Marc Zeitlin]

OK, now back to reality. What if someone were to work out a system that would vary the AOA of just the canard when unsafe conditions were detected?

Do you believe that the failure rate (during normal flight, not during the actuation mode) of this "safety feature" that would require all sorts of sensing systems, motors, actuators, pivots, etc. would be lower than the failure rate of keeping your CG in the approved range, or even if you made a large enough mistake so that your CG was out of range, lower than the failure rate of NOT allowing your minimum speed to drop below about 60 kts?

 

Again, there has NEVER been a deep stall of a COZY aircraft with the CG in the approved range. You're REQUIRED by the FAR's (at least in the USA) to do a W&B calc before every flight, so that you know where your CG is (not to mention that it's smart to do so).

 

..... And it may help with obtaining a higher Vne, by decreasing the canard AOA at high speeds. I know that the plane isn't designed to do bad things with a properly positioned CG, but just in case.

Just in case what? Lowering the canard AOA with respect to the main wing will allow you to have a lower elevator position, but it will have minimal effect if any on the flutter susceptibility. Not to mention that it will decrease the stability of the aircraft. Now you're back to your redundant computer controls......

[Len Evansic]

Just in case what? Lowering the canard AOA with respect to the main wing will allow you to have a lower elevator position, but it will have minimal effect if any on the flutter susceptibility. Not to mention that it will decrease the stability of the aircraft. Now you're back to your redundant computer controls......

I know it would require redundant computer controls, and that there are other failure modes that this doesn't address, but I was just throwing this out as an idea to see what others think. I guess what I was looking at here is something similar to what SpaceShip 1 and other planes do when they go trans-sonic.

 

At this point control surfaces are entire surfaces, not just the trailing edges. Since I've seen a lot of posts that ponder the actual speed of Mcrit at different altitudes with respect to the Roncz foil, and given its relatively high fixed AOA, that varying that may help out at the high end. Following this, I thought about other places where this may be helpful.

 

I disagree that this will not have effect in flutter conditions. Vibrations are one of my specialties. Changing the AOA of the canard will change the aerodynamic forces imparted on it. This can damp or drive resonance to a different frequency, which will help out with flutter.

 

I do agree that adding this type of control will add one more thing to worry about breaking. I like many others who are also new to this type of plane, worry about deep stall, because it is talked about so much in forums like this one. Bad things can happen, would it be that bad to have alternative safety measures? What if your ballast was off because you never touch it, but removed it to cary another passenger last week. Yes, I know you should catch it in pre-flight, but what if you don't because you had other things on your mind? People still have gear-up landings, because they get distracted.

 

-- Len