Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
deronjthomas

Max width of the Fuselage.

Recommended Posts

 

Again you need to be sure you understand just how easy it is to take an otherwise docile aircraft and turn it into an unflyable machine. Don't let that stop you, just realize modifying an aircraft plan is not trival task.

There it is....


Carlos Fernandez

AeroCanard FG

Plans #206

Chp. 13

aerocanard.kal-soft.com

Sales & Support

GRT Avionics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll add one more observation. I have read a number of posts that widening a Cozy wider would require significant work. The 12" wider 'King Kozy', which is not complete, was more complicated than just adding 6" to either side of the centerline.

 

My concern is that some of these blogs and forums make such modifications seem trival. This was probably not the intent of writers but rather an artifact of the varying knowledge and skills of these people. If you read around, the issue of making the Cozy wider has lots of comments, observations, and aerodynamics stretching over years. If you read through them you will see this might be quite an endeavour and not likely to yield results in 18-24 months.

 

I would let not building a 60" Cozy be a show stopper for you. Certainly building a LongEZ/Cozy Wide Body 2-seater will be interesting. Some of the mods suggested in this thread are quite doable and would yield a comfortable and fast plane. The flight deck should be quite nice I would imagine.

 

So as Dust says, "enjoy the build."


Nathan Gifford

Tickfaw, LA USA

Cozy Mk IV Plans Set 1330

Better still --> Now at CH 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind being the first to do something different or strange. I just don't want to make a $10,000 mistake... :scared:

I was advised by David Orr (a few chapters too late) to build the

canard, spar, and wings first, then decide about and/or purchase

a tub later.

 

There are several projects for sale just before the point of committing to

the cost of nose and main gear. I was contemplating selling mine at

just that point for just that reason.

 

I'm 6'2", almost fit in the bare tub, except for that damn longeron,

found out that I couldn't be effective as PIC in a flying cozy.

 

My tub is now for foam and glass storage, reference for future tub

size enhancements, and maybe tandem (I've thought about it too)

when the day comes that I find I have too much time and money.

 

Don't want to build another plane, the cozy flies like a fighter jet.

 

ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an FYI--The Cessna Grand Caravan that I fly has a 60" wide fuselage, with almost 10" between the seats that'll accomodate an airline-type flight case.

 

So maybe 60" wide is a bit extreme, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While on the topic of convential vs. canard aircraft, be sure to check out Nat Puffer's EAA AirVenture 2005 presentation titled 'Cozy Aerodynamics 101' [...] That might confirm your decision to pursue a canard aircraft -- it did for me.

As much as I respect Nat for the work that he did upsizing the Long to the Cozy, and without taking away from how good an aircraft the Cozy is, this document always makes the aerodynamicist in me cringe. The assumptions that form the basis of the analysis are pretty arbitrarily chosen, and I'd say are fairly suspect - especially, I think, the idea that a conventional aircraft carries as much downforce on it's tail as a percentage of gross weight as the canard carries lift, this seems pretty absurd to me, yet is the basis for a lot of the argument.

 

It's also pretty selective about what induced drag effects to talk about, highlighting the effect of the winglets without discussing the negative that the canard brings to creating a rather less than ideal spanwise lift distribution.

 

There are other problems with it, but really, it's a bit of a straw man attack, the conventional design isn't anywhere near as bad from and efficiency perspective, and the canard has compromises in efficiency not mentioned. Both approaches can make great aircraft.

 

In the Army, up here anyways, it's what we call "situating the estimate" (a play on "estimating the situation")

  • Like 1

Craig K.

Cozy IV #1457

building chapter seven!

http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/chasingmars/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information