Have the FG plans been updated since the last post in 2015?

[aeroknot]

The last post in this forum was 2015 and it was mentioned that there were serious enough issues that you would need Cozy plans so you had the right info.  Have these issues been addressed?

 

Is the AeroCanard using more advanced fibers for strength and durability?

 

TiA

JOhn ><>

[Voidhawk9]

I'm an Aerocanard plans holder. No updates have been issued, and the plans don't even include the last revision (3?) of changes issued for the Cozy plans (which are entirely relevant - they are almost identical after all!).

That said, I like the improvements over the Cozy plans, though yes there are errors. Still better quality plans than for many other aircraft, as far as I can tell. Cross-checking information between different parts of the plans and the drawings seems to resolve most issues.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Voidhawk9

[Kent Ashton]

The last post in this forum was 2015 and it was mentioned that there were serious enough issues that you would need Cozy plans so you had the right info.  Have these issues been addressed?

 

Is the AeroCanard using more advanced fibers for strength and durability?

 

I dunno but you can probably find some good background information using the search function of this site and two other forums, CanardCommunity.com and CanardAviators.com as well as the Cozybuilders (Google group) archive.  There has been lots of discussion of Aerocanard over the years.  I see it is now Aerocad  http://aerocad.com

 

Jeff Russell(?) and his dad originally licensed the right to make molded Mk-IV parts from Nat Puffer.  There was much talk in the Cozy Newsletters before Nat and Jeff had a falling out.  I remember that they used Triax cloth for some parts because it was faster to lay up.  I don't recall it be touted as a stronger or more advanced airplane, just easier to build.

[Jon Matcho]

The last post in this forum was 2015 and it was mentioned that there were serious enough issues that you would need Cozy plans so you had the right info.  Have these issues been addressed?

No. I wanted a wider back seat and rear so I jumped into the AeroCanard FG plans as a modification to the Cozy Mark IV plans I already had. It has been a painful experience. The Cozy Mark IV plans were maintained and revised for 3 editions, and then tweaked through newsletters. The AeroCanard FG plans were "forked" from the Cozy Mark IV revision 1 plans, but were not updated. I had to rebuild and address several parts that simply did not fit per AeroCanard FG plans.

 

At this point I do not consider I am building an AeroCanard FG, but a Cozy Mark IV with a widened rear.

 

My strong recommendation for a plans-built 4-place canard is to just build a Cozy Mark IV per plans.

 

Cross-checking information between different parts of the plans and the drawings seems to resolve most issues.

This is essential for building an AeroCanard FG in my opinion. If you were to insist on building using the AeroCanard FG plans, then you absolutely NEED the Cozy Mark IV plans. That's a lot of unnecessary and distracting work, although is limited to aft part of the fuselage.

 

Is the AeroCanard using more advanced fibers for strength and durability?

No. As Kent pointed out, the use of Triax in the AeroCanard was never presented as "more advanced" by the Russells or anyone else. At best Triax was touted as simpler, and at worst it was regarded as 'suspect' because it was not the per plans material in the Cozy or Long-EZ lines.

[aeroknot]

Thanks, that's the exact input I was looking for.  The aerocad.com website looks modern and updated, but looks like there is a real lack of support behind the product.

 

Are they OK for landing gear and canopies and stuff?

[Voidhawk9]

No support from ACS for the Cozy, either! But there's a great community, so it doesn't matter either way.

 

This is essential for building an AeroCanard FG in my opinion. If you were to insist on building using the AeroCanard FG plans, then you absolutely NEED the Cozy Mark IV plans. That's a lot of unnecessary and distracting work, although is limited to aft part of the fuselage.

 Yes, the aft fuselage / firewall drawing doesn't work on the Aerocanard plans, and the other changes make a number of aspects unclear in this area. I re-drew the firewall in CAD anyway, incorporating some other changes I have made, thus 'solving' that one, to some extent anyway!

[Jon Matcho]

Thanks, that's the exact input I was looking for.  The aerocad.com website looks modern and updated, but looks like there is a real lack of support behind the product.

 

Are they OK for landing gear and canopies and stuff?

They may be fine with parts, and even have some in stock. I have not heard of many with experience buying parts from the new owner. I bought my gear from Featherlite and will look to buy my canopy from Airplane Plastics. I wouldn't be surprised if AeroCad doesn't make their canopies in-house.

 

No support from ACS for the Cozy, either! But there's a great community, so it doesn't matter either way.

Good point, but it is worth noting the plans were revised with 2 major editions following the first, with newsletters, and the community was (and still is) a great asset along the way. You just don't have that with the AeroCanard SB/FG plans and are mainly on your own.

 

Yes, the aft fuselage / firewall drawing doesn't work on the Aerocanard plans, and the other changes make a number of aspects unclear in this area. I re-drew the firewall in CAD anyway, incorporating some other changes I have made, thus 'solving' that one, to some extent anyway!

Nice, I did the same and would be curious to compare the dimensions you ended up with for the LG bulkheads and firewall. At least I will definitely be able to fit a bicycle back there (which many already do with the plans-built Cozy Mark IV).

[macleodm3]

No. As Kent pointed out, the use of Triax in the AeroCanard was never presented as "more advanced" by the Russells or anyone else. At best Triax was touted as simpler, and at worst it was regarded as 'suspect' because it was not the per plans material in the Cozy or Long-EZ lines.

 

Also, the Aerocanard plans don't include the use of Triax.... it was only used on a few prefabricated parts built by Aerocad for the Cozy or Aerocanard (wings).

The Aerocanard plans use the same materials as the Cozy MKIV.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Andrew Anunson

[macleodm3]

Are they OK for landing gear and canopies and stuff?

 

I have Aerocad wings, main spar, and turtleback on my Cozy MKIV and they were built while Jeff had the company.  The parts are very nice but aren't perfect.... they are better (more straight) than I could build.

I also have parts from Featherlite.... again... very nice parts, better than I could build but not perfect.

[Voidhawk9]

Nice, I did the same and would be curious to compare the dimensions you ended up with for the LG bulkheads and firewall. 

Well, I don't have LG bulkheads and have deleted the NACA duct and the build-up to create it, so I'm a bit different, with a shallower lower firewall. This will produce a more gradual taper up from the belly to the prop.  This also moves the lower engine mount hardpoints, so 'stock' engine mounts won't fit, but I'm not planning to mount anything that would fit on the other end of the engine mount anyway. (Yeah, I'm gonna poke both eyes out, aren't I?!)

 

In the end, I won't be able to call it an Aerocanard. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Voidhawk9

[Jon Matcho]

Ah, Infinity retractable gear. You definitely have your hands full with those modifications and ambition!
 

In the end, I won't be able to call it an Aerocanard.

If you were in the U.S. you could call it anything you like as you are the manufacturer. Not sure how your experimental aviation laws work. I just visited your page, which was good inspiration for me to get my builder page reworked and in business again, but after first upgrading this place!
 

Also, the Aerocanard plans don't include the use of Triax.... it was only used on a few prefabricated parts built by Aerocad for the Cozy or Aerocanard (wings).
The Aerocanard plans use the same materials as the Cozy MKIV.

Great point! The original Aerocanard FG plans were simply exact copies of the Cozy Mark IV 1st Edition plans with the original designer (Jeff Russell) simply marking up the Cozy Mark IV LG and Firewall bulkhead template drawings. Al @ Aerocad has since digitized the plans and put the revised bulkhead drawings into CAD, but this is a case where I much prefer the original analog dimensions, text, and drawings found in the most current and up-to-date Cozy Mark IV plans. In other words, I am not comfortable with the accuracy of translation in the Aerocanard FG plans relative to the Cozy Mark IV plans from which they are based. A few of us have noted dimensional errors and, personally speaking, I have no need to invest time in verifying the accuracy of translation/digitization by comparing every written sentence and measurement between both plans.

 

This is why my strong recommendation is to:

1. Just build a Cozy Mark IV (with any of the flight-proven modifications if you must).
2. If you must build an Aerocanard FG from plans, then recognize that you're only building a Cozy Mark IV with a widened rear.  Base your build on the Cozy Mark IV plans and Substitute the LG and Firewall bulkheads only from the Aerocanard FG plans (and deal with everything not fitting in the Aerocanard OR Cozy Mark IV plans since the Aerocanard FG LG and Firewall bulkhead dimensions are essentially broken.  Once you get beyond chapter 3, throw the Aerocanard plans out and build per the Cozy Mark IV 3rd Edition plans.

Please do note that none of this applies to any prefabricated Aerocad may offer from the molds they have.  Aerocad advertises that they can provide Cozy Mark IV or Aerocanard-sized fuselage parts for which I have no experience with since I have not purchased anything other than plans from Aerocad.  

 

As always, it's on you and "buyer beware".

[Voidhawk9]

Ah, Infinity retractable gear. You definitely have your hands full with those modifications and ambition!

If you were in the U.S. you could call it anything you like as you are the manufacturer. Not sure how your experimental aviation laws work. I just visited your page, which was good inspiration for me to get my builder page reworked and in business again, but after first upgrading this place!

Yeah, but I don't own a set of gear yet. When I get a set, that will be a lot easier than having a gear set fabricated; Though I wouldn't be the first to try that. It is more work when installing the gear onto the spar, but saves a lot of time in other places, so is probably a wash. For instance Chapter 9 - I don't have fixed gear or a landing brake (not needed with retracts extended), so I can skip most of this chapter entirely (no, not the engine mount reinforcements, though!). No NACA or landing brake made chapter 7 a lot quicker, too.

My website is WAY behind, and needs some work... lots of stuff there is incomplete. Again, ambitious... 

[Jon Matcho]

No NACA or landing brake made chapter 7 a lot quicker, too.

What's the reasoning behind no NACA scoop? Overhead cooling?

 

My website is WAY behind, and needs some work... lots of stuff there is incomplete.

You have that priority in order!

[Voidhawk9]

Either overhead or armpits, yes. Also, NACAs are not well suited to feeding a radiator.