Jim Sower

My wild assed guess would involve a (couple of) simple test(s). Check your takeoff distance at 1800#. Check it again at 2200#. Take the ratio of distances (say 1.3) and square it. Use the result against the 2200# distance to get your 2600# distance. If you gather data at, say, 1500#, 1800# and 2100# you might verify the validity of the math (again, it's a SWAG). As to over gross operations, when my wife and I went cross country, we regularly launched in our Long-EZ in excess of 1600# and close to 1700# a few times. That's an O-235 against a 1325# design gross and 1425# design over gross IIRC. If you've got a long enough runway (>4000?) and low enough DA (<3000?) you should be OK. We used a lot of runway and had anemic climb but I was aware of all that going in and was appropriately cautious (like retracting the nose gear as soon as I rotate, and don't over-rotate. Just remember to avoid hard landings and real hi-G maneuvers at really high weights. Overweight operations are a lot like high DA ops except that high DA is more dicey IMO. DA / excess thrust issues have been part fo my life for a long time. I'll take overweight with a good engine/prop every time. Definitely work into it gradually. Go coast to coast a couple of times before you trans-Pac. Then it's off to Australia. Jim Sower

Not in Flight means I'm covered if the hangar burns down or someone taxis into me (or I into them). It ends when I take the runway and begins when I clear the runway. It ain't much, but if hull coverage is $4000 a year and 10% ded, it's better than nothing. Anyway, this year's full coverage was cheaper than last year's NiF. Things seem to be looking up in the insurance world.

It would be really easy to install a "hidden" master switch or something of the like that would prevent the engine starting. That would not prevent component theft which I believe is far more common. The good news is that a locked hangar is really all you need. Component thieves are typically drug addicts and small time burglars who go, almost exclusively, for the "low hanging fruit". Any obstacle at all will divert them to a target that is less or not protected. I've never heard of anyone losing anything from a locked hangar, even if the lock is easily defeated.

I don't know what to say. I got full coverage for my Velocity, not-in-motion for my Long-EZ, all for a little over $2200. Last year, it was $2400 for liability and not-in-flight on the Velocity. Things are getting better for me. Was plumb awful for a while after Sep 2001, but it's been getting better ever since.

The problem doesn't seem to me to be a search engine issue. I regard it as A) a user discipline issue; B) a site design issue. A) Most of the posts are in the "Coffee Shop" area or "General Canard Construction" which in fact turns out to be pretty much interchangeanble with Coffee Shop. Many of the threads in these areas actually change subject matter several times within the thread. Even if you have total recall of all the threads, under the current operation, you would have to remember what portion of what thread some particular subject got discussed. There is a lot of stuff in these two areas that should reside somewhere else, and users (and Jon and John) should start a new thread or move a post to a more appropriate area when the subject matter changes within a thread. This has been brought up before, but nothing of any consequence was done about it. B) There is a LOT of interesting discussion on this site that has no area defined in which it should be logically posted. For example, if there was a "Performance" area with sub-areas for "Aerodynamics", "Canard Issues", "General Aircraft Performance", etc. the aerobatic post you alluded to and all of the very lengthy discussion(s) on the "efficiency" and "superiority" of canard configuration over tractors would have had an intuitive place to be posted, and if posts to those subjects were posted there or moved there when it became evident where they belonged, even the most rudimentary search engine would work really well. If there were "Turbo" and "Comparative Engine Performance" area(s) on the site, these subjects (which were discussed very extensively in the Coffee House) would have a logical, intuitive place to live. A "Tips and Tricks" area (not chapter specific) would also be of great benefit ... the discussion of "Plastic Bagging" comes to mind. And the list goes on .... but you get my drift ... ... The offer I made is real and I will do a very, very good job of it ... if we don't do this we insult many who have contributed here ... forum was supposed to be a repository of info, not just a chat room ... as of now that is all that it is ... May I suggest that your efforts might be more productive if you were to get together with Jon and John and modify the design of the site to include important subject areas that could not have been predicted at the outset but have turned out to be quite significant. Your photographic memory of post subjects would be invaluable in making a list of threads that are wrongly resident in the Coffee House and General Construction areas and linking them to a more appropriate area so that they could be migrated when the site is reconfigured. As a matter of fact, researching those types of posts is obviously a critical first step in the redesign of the site - determining what new/different subject areas are needed. ... I came here with the express intention of leaving what little information i have, pulling info out of people that come by, and that info would be here ... Exactly. The reshuffle process I've outlined seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to do exactly that. If my memory was even remotely as good as yours, I would be making a list instead of trying to encourage you. ... "NEW" wanna be builders are arriving daily and the info in here, if winnowed, can be of great value, as it sits, it is only of value to someone that really like to read A LOT or someone that likes to ask questions... Exactly. So let the winnowing begin. Put ALL of the good stuff/real information in the appropiate, searchable area, and leave everything else in the Coffee Shop (so you don't aggrivate someone by deleting his deathless prose). ... That leaves the lurkers OUT. There are and have been many lurkers, I know the guests are not guests, but some of them are guests and never join, just decide the plane is too hard and go away, buy plans and start working and a few get up the nerve to ask a question.... I tend to think the reshuffle I have in mind would give newbies AND lurkers a much better basis on which to make an informed decision. One man's opinion ....

I think my approach will be to idle the engine down to 1000 rpm or below (or however low I can make it run at all). With a 2.85:1 reduction drive, that's under 400 rpm. That shouldn't take a whole lot of braking. It might just sit there all by itself. Certainly if I go close to the edge of the taxiway and put one wheel just off the pavement in the grass.

I never flew an airplane in my life with a parking brake until I bought a Grumman Cheetah some years ago. Discovered that the parking brake was a failure mode, and like John S, that time is temperature. If the line for takeoff is all that long, I shut down to wait.

I agree with Wayne. There is a lot of zealotry on the lists. The concise, rational argument is on Phil Johnson's site. Sadly, there is not enough actual, reliable data to make apples-to-apples comparisons of FG/RG performance on a Cozy. There probably won't be any notably useful data in the near term since most of the RG Cozys in the pipeline have engines that are non-standard and therefore difficult to compare with the fleet at large.

When that happens, I just tell them my plane is LOTS different from JD's ... my plane has gas in it ... my plane has a fuel tank selector valve that works ... my plane doesn't go flat-hatting down the beach ... etc. I don't get anal about it and the questioner seems satisfied. I try not to take it too personal that JD chose a plane like mine to kill himself in

Where might one come up with some facts? The Cozy in Hawaii last fall, the Cozy on Long Island last winter, this latest [not] Cozy, rumored to be Vari-EZ last week. The preliminary "rumors" were published, a few more rumors from "better sources" but not a whole lot of reliable information so far that I have seen. When can we expect some more facts? From whence?

If you're married, it doesn't matter. It won't be enough. It can never be. Something on the order of 12" x 48". Go figure.

How short is short? 3000' is pretty much the lower limit if you live at low DA. If you're even thinking about grass strips, you're looking at the WRONG AIRPLANE. TE flow fences will help roll authority some, but not landing speed. Vortex generators (VGs)on the main wing and canard will help with TO and land speeds - on my Velocity (aerodynamically much closer to the Cozy than Cozy is to Vari_EZ) VGs reduced landing speed 7-10 kts. I would expect at least 5 kts on a Cozy, perhaps the 7-10 I got. Depending on how stout an engine you have, landing might be more challenging than TO. Around that, I used to have a lot of trouble slowing down my Long-EZ - it wouldn't slow down enough in the groove to land - it floated in ground effect for 500-1000'. I took to shutting it down coming over the fence. It touched down nicely and reliably right on the numbers and would easily make the first turn off (<2000'). I would re-light it on rollout and continue the march. I never had a problem at all. Finally found the root cause of the fast glide path and was able to land "unassisted" on the numbers every time. Now I only shut down if there is some indication that stopping the airplane might be challenging (hard or agressive stop can cause brake fade, hot brakes or excessive wear). Turning off the motor is easily the most effective short field landing technique available to us (absent hook or thrust reverseal). <... Retractable Main Gear ... put the gear out on the strakes and out of line of the prop ...> There's a number of reasons for going for retracts. None of them involve FOD. <... "mud flap" directly behind the nose gear ... convential mud flap or a metel wire "basket" to prevent the nose gear from kicking up debris back into the prop ...> Best way to prevent FOD is a) leave the landing brake down for ALL ground ops, and perhaps don't raise it for the first 20 kts on TO; b) get a treadless (like slick) nose wheel. There's a credible body of thought that the tread kicks up more stuff than the slick tire. Mainly, you'd be amazed how beat up and dinged my belly board gets. To me, that spells e-f-f-e-c-t-i-v-e F-O-D d-e-f-l-e-c-t-o-r <... Laser rangefinder ...> Is a monumental exercise is PVORT

You also might try "Phillip Johnson" <plmjohnson@sprint.ca> I thought he was near Toronto, not sure. He's building a cozy with retracts and SUV engine. Hell of a guy.

Not sure exactly what you mean by "...call when't out to clear the run way ..." but if HE called to clear the runway, one has to wonder what another airplane was doing launching in the middle of his emergency ... turned base sharp,nose droped they said. he over shot final,turn back to field and carrer landed it on the pavment,and rolled off on to the grass ... If it was me and the "call to clear the runway" actually happened as described, I would be looking for five minutes alone with the ##($^ who launched into me after I announced I had problems and was coming back ... the engine was running hot so he rejeted it .... Don't know if you mean "rejetted" (like the carb) or "rejected" like in aborted the hop. ... after take off it ran badly."i guess it was to rich" he said ... Has he no mixture control? ... Iasked him if the taxi test was ok,but he didn't do one... Who is this guy??

My Uni and BID rolls are 39". I'll have to find another home for my peel ply - it's 48" just like you said, and my cabinet is 40". I did fall into one nice device. While scouting through the local transfer station (aka dump) looking for dorm refers, I came across a "church table" with fold up legs that folds in the middle. I tossed the messed up particle board top, recovered it with plywood/formica and hinged it to the front of my cabinet. Now the front cabinet cover unfolds and drops down into a 42"x96" cutting table on nice metal legs.

Except perhaps for all the time they ever spend sitting on a tarmac in the summer time ....

I flew tactical jets in the Marine Corps for 13 years. Then I owned a couple of auto repair business' and was a diesel truck mechanic. When that wasn't any fun any more I got into programming, eventually started consulting and had a consulting company for maybe ten years. I'm now pretty well retired. Looking to start a business manufacturing airplanes and collateral bits and peices as soon as I can demonstrate competence get something started.

DAMN!! How does one become a DAR? Nice work if you can find it!

Insurance is higher. It burns [at least] 12 gph at ~ 150 kts on $2.50 avgas which works out to about $0.20/mi. Cozy burns 8-10 gph making over 180 kts on $1.80 mogas which works out to $0.09/mi. Not having built the V. (it's not one of the prime examples), I'm always working on something trying to make it right, trying to play the hand that's dealt me. With Cozy, I deal the cards and have a much better, more reliable, more maintainable bird going in. I've already put two jugs (in about 200 hrs) on my IO-360 that came at me 500 SMOH. That money would by me a primo PSRU for my Cozy that would last forever. I've bought two exhaust pipes from Velocity - neither of which fit - spent about $60 extra as well as a couple of weeks out of my life trying to make them fit, and in the process ensuring that they will fail early. I don't anticipate so much of that s--t with Cozy. I'm going to have to strip and repaint the V. one of these days, and a whole bunch of other crap that I wouldn't be looking at with a Cozy. Just for openers ....

Or PRE [im]pregnated layups/laminates or PRE wetting layups? Or articulating the notion in a very gentle, diplomatic way that if they have read over the procedures and still can't comprehend the process, perhaps they shouldn't be embarking on a project this difficult.

I have pretty much the same agenda as you. I am 6'2", 250#; my wife is about 175# for a total front seat load in the neighborhood of 450# (which is about 50# over the design limit of Cozy or Velocity. I own an IFR Velocity and am building a Cozy because it is faster, cheaper to own and performs better all around. I can juuuust fit into a standard Cozy IV. Cozy III is not a candidate AT ALL IMO. I plan to make mine much more viable for me by: 1. Widen the whole fuselage, stem to stern, by 2". 2. Cheat another inch on each side by narrowing the side consoles. 3. Cheat another couple of inches by lowering the center console to just above the seats - we'll be "... flying cheek to cheek ..." so to speak. 4. Rather than move the front seats back (8" is a HUGE shift of CG - two or three would work better IMO) I am going to add 6" to the span of the canard (which brings it back to the original, prototype spec). 5. Change the canopy so that instead of starting 2" or more inboard of the outside of the fuselage, it goes more or less straight up from the fuselage side and does not immediately curve inward, but makes a sharper turn higher up for improved lateral head room. <... Nat Puffer is quoted as saying that a single front seat might be possible ... 39-inch wide cockpit, with room in the back for one or two more folks ... an attractive prospect ...> That might work if you weigh over 300#. If you are within reach of my weight, make smaller, more benign modifications. I also own a Long-EZ (that is busted right now) and my wife will not, NO WAY, NO HOW, EVER ride in the back seat again (hence the Velocity and Cozy). Don't screw up your Cozy by making an EZ out of it. I don't like the EZ because the back seat passenger is dead weight cargo with a crumby view of what's going on. Side by side crew is the only way to go! Hope this helps ....

You'll have to take that up with Burt. He's not into poopy looking stuff, and he designed these protrusions. Wing tip performance enhnacers are a black art. I just do what they (Burt et al) tell me. You might be able to get away with a much lower piece at the leading edge and have it droop down lower to the trailing edge (particularly if you have fences at both ends of the ailerons and perhaps on the cowl.) Like draw a line from an inch or so below the wing at the LE to the "break" in the bottom toward the TE and make it thinner. Whatever else I do, I'll retain a skag.

You're in good company here. I've never met anyone who didn't think it looked better without winglets. <... If it is to add lift to the main lifting body at the tip like a flow fence, wouldn't the shape be different? ...> Actually, it inhibits spanwise flow. Spanwise flow will degrade low speed performance, particularly roll authority. It also affects cruise performance, but to a lesser extent. If you are ever nearby (like less than 100') when a canard touches down - particularly if he is slow - you will note that the wing tips are only a foot or so off the ground. It doesn't take much of a gust or bounce to drag a wing tip. I will retain my plans lower winglets for skags. I'd rather scrape up the bottom of a winglet than rip a rudder off. <... So, where is the love for the lower winglet here? ...> Don't know. It may be unstylish, unsightly, whatever, but I'll have to keep mine for practical reasons.

<... Not trying to be defensive. I can see where it would become easy for people based at a big runway airport to never develop speed control, and really get in trouble at a short runway field ...> That's the kind of thing I was addressing. It's OK IMO to play fast and loose with a long runway so long as you can comfortably jump right back into spot landings or other tight maneuvers when the situation calls for it, which seems to be the case with you. <... much less flare, and I am carrying more speed across the numbers ... didn't see the need for mushing in on the edge of a canard bob ...> Agreed. As I said, we need to be able to do it comfortably when the time comes. <... Not trying to be defensive ...> I didn't read it that way. I understand what you were talking about much better now.

Hire me to fly it for you. <... why not just add 2 or 3 or 4 inches in behind the front seat in length ...> That would have an unknown effect on CG. Might balance out OK under some conditions, but the box would move, and none of the plans references around CG would be valid any more (adding to the fuselage would move the canard forward, shifting the Aerodynamic Center which is what drives CG location). If the fuel load was not centered on the CG box, CG might migrate unacceptably as fuel burned down. Lots of things could happen - all of them difficult to predict and/or quantify. Battery in the nose would work if you have it in back. Is it too late to elongate the nose (ala Long-EZ) and put the battery farther forward and give it a better moment? That would lessen the ballast requirement if you could offset it far enough from the CG. Just speculatin' ....