Jerry Schneider

Yep, Ken's plane has the Cozy bottom and AC top. (He did a great job too!) Personally, I think the AC top MAY be more aerodynamic than the Cozy. Not so many swoops/bumps for air to go over. I went with it because I couldn't sit in the back seat of a stock Cozy without tilting my head to the side, and to have the option of Velocity-style downdraft cooling at decision time. (Presently, my plan is to use stock cooling, because my engine came set up that way already. And I'm TIRED of being in the 7th year of my 3-5 year project. )

Jon, You probably already have, but just in case... check http://home.earthlink.net/~jerskip/FIRST/Chapter_5.html 1.Sand the depressions the size/depth of the gauges. 2.Put peelply in the depressions. (That's so you don't have to spend loads of time sanding the outer foam from the depression to get a glass-to-glass bond with the outer skin.) 3.Glass the inside of the fuselage wall. 4. When ready to glass the outer skin, remove the foam and peelply from the area of the gauges (you placed in step 2), and glass per plans. Trust me, the UNI won't have any trouble contouring to the depressions if you make them gradual/tapered. You also get the benefit of complete continuity of the fibers running along the inside of the fuselage wall. It seems to me, doing it the way you outline in your last post, you'll have to cut the inner skin and mount the gauge to the inside of the outer skin. What you end up with is discontinuity of the fibers traversing the inner skin. Clear as ketchup? Give me a call if necessary....

It would probably work on the canard, where the cuts are all all the same from one end to the other.The set-up would be a real task. But the wing cores are tapered from one end to the other, requiring less movement on one end. Better to rent someone for a few hours!

People: In the interest of accuracy, I would like to amend my previous post. Don't want to be responsible for spreading bum dope. As I understand it, Chrissy of CG Products is not a mechanical engineer as I previously stated. She's a Mechanical Designer. My Bad . But the design she used was taken from a well respected and widely used source. Namely Tony Binglelis's book "Firewall Forward" page 78 & 79. I would guess Tony Binglelis IS an engineer, or equivalent. Secondly, with regard to the statement "probably fail with potentially disasterous results shortly after being placed in service" , I have opinions, from more than one source, indicating failure would most likely be manifested by vibration which would necessitate premature ending of flight (ie: controlled), rather than "disasterous results". Potentially? Yes. Likely? Not in my present opinion. (I reserve the right to change, though. ) And oh yes.... It's bona fides. Never have been a speller.

The concern is appreciated. Due dilligence has, and will continue to be conducted. As to the warning, I appreciate that as well. Aubrey: Since you chose to open this can-o-worms on a public forum, would you please let us all know your bonafides? (Due dilligence goes both ways.) (ie:background.) Your Forum profile is pretty much vacant. You've made some pretty serious statements here, and I need more source data to evaluate their validity. In any case, I appreciate you taking the time to type them in. I understand Chrissi IS a mechanical engineer. I know she has spent a lot of time researching engine mounts. The design is standard, and has been in use for many years. Richard: I'm not an engineer as well, (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express either. ) but I'm guessing an FMA is some sort of analysis. What "doesn't look right" to you? I'm guessing you're echoing Aubrey's comments as to robustness. Funny thing though, checkout http://pages.sbcglobal.net/ccanedy/chapter23.html . Clark Canedy's mount looks exactly like mine, (except for the Dynafocal ring). Is he in danger too? In closing, I appreciate any and all comments/suggestions offered here. If any of them turn out to save my life, I'll buy you a beer. If it doesn't, I'll buy you a beer anyways.

AFAICT, none. It's the design of the engine case that dictates the type of mount needed.

Jon, I guess you haven't seen the last CSA, where they did the snippet on the "50 Caliber in the Nose" mod.

Engine mount hard point locations should be the same regardless of engine. (I think. )

I received my engine mount for my Conical IO-320 the other day fro CG Proucts, (ie:The CozyGirrrls). Gotta say, it looks good. There was some question as to whether there would be interference with the fuel pump. To avoid that, Chrissi asked me to take some high resolution orthagonal pictures of my engine and email them to her. She was able to put the pictures into some fancy engineering software, and create a "Virtual" engine with which she fitted "Virtual" tubing around everything. The result: Fits like a glove. (I should copywrite that. ) The Girrrls construct the jig, design, layout, and cut the tubing, and have a certified welder do the sticky stuff. IMH (layman's)O, Top notch.

Look again Jon. The drawing I'm looking at, (downloaded when it was legal:) ), shows the FJE to be 6.0 for the SB (Cozy) and 4.5" for the FG (AeroCanard). Didn't you get the memo?So, don't go 2" shorter, go 1.5" shorter.

To allow for slop.

None that I'm aware of. The only gotcha I'm aware of, is most builders say they wish they'd made the aluminum inserts 2x2" vs. 1x1". I'm not an engineer, (and there isn't even a Holiday Inn Express in my neighborhood. ), but I'd think no matter what power plant you use, it would still have to push the plane in the same spot.

The BEST way to build a Cozy.... is to get started. Then, after you start.... keep going. Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. But, I see so many people in the "pre-build" statge staying there because they just don't want to jump into the water. The key here, IMHO, is to do one chapter at at time, (the same way you would eat an elephant... one bite at a time. ) Don't look forward too far in the plans, or you'll get discouraged. When beginning a new chapter, skim read it, then REALLY read it, then go to the archives to research issues you're interested in, then DO IT!!! You will run into times when what you seek isn't in the archives, or you have an idea for a modification you'd like to boounce off others, then come here, but that will be the exception rather than the rule. The time you spend ruminating over ideas/data which are presently useless to you will directly subtract from the time you will spend flying your plane in the future. Trust me, nearly, if not all of the answers you seek are there in the archives when you will need them. There is SO much to learn as-you-go in this endeavor, asking for the best way to do everything now would be like asking the ocean to be put into a teacup. (Let alone getting someone to take the time to type the "Cozy Book of Wisdom" out for you. (Which, BTW, is being constantly upgraded by other people as time marches on anyway. So why learn possibly antiquated ideas/methods? Besides, the replies you get from your question here may just confuse the issue with facts you don't need yet, thereby slowing you down more so than if you only had the plans to work from. You get my drift? This type forum can be a great place to find the latest info you need today, but it can also give you presently un-needed info which may be antiquated by the time you need it. Of course, the safest thing to would be to wring our hands hoping we have ALL the wisdom we need to build a perfect plane before starting. That way, we'd never have to worry about crashing because we'd never get into the air. JUST DO IT!

If you have the Fein Detail Sander (w/blade), you'll never wait for the "knife trim stage" again. Plus, the cutouts are at an angle thru the seatback due to the angle it is mounted in the fuselage. This is easily done with the Fein.In an earlier post, the Dritz were mentioned as what's used to knife-trim. The Dritz will only cut wet or dry glass... not cured. And you'll still end up with sharp edges, no mater how close you trim the wet glass with the Dritz. True, they are pre-cut, but you'll find, after they are glassed, you'll be knife trimming (chewing gum stage) or, better yet, trimming after cure with the Fein anyways. If you're serious about building a plane, get the Fein. It saves mega-time, and enables you to produce quality work with minimal effort. "Wherever 2 people are gathered in the name of an easier way... there so am I."

I STILL can't fiure out how that happened.

I always take I-65.

Same here. I can't wait to meet me either. "Roses are red Violets are blue. I'm schizophrenic. And so am I."

I'm flying int SDF. I have a car rented, and will have 2-3 seats available for someone if they need a ride. Arrive SDF: Fri, Sep 30, 10:44am Delta Air Lines Depart SDF: Sun, Oct 2, 4:12pm Communication is key here. (Ask Jon how he knows. )

It boils down to MONEY and TIME. If you have plenty of both, then do both. If you don't, you can't get the plane done when you're flying. At least, that's my philosophy. I haven't been PIC for years. But I intend to work on skills/currency when close to completion. YMMV

I've been comunicating with Todd Silver of Todd's Canopies for a couple of years now, and recently had the pleasure of puchasing one of his canopies. Mine was a moderately custom job, as I've modified my canopy by adding 2" to the width and 1.75" to the height. To make a long story short, he was able to make me the exact canopy I needed. He's one of the most accommodating vendors I've dealt with to date. Todd's main focus is getting the customer EXACTLY what they need in a timely fashion. IMHO, he won't let anything out of his shop that isn't 100% perfect. When shopping for a canopy, Todd's Canopies deserves your serious consideration.

Preamble: I'm building a Cozy MKIV using the AeroCanard upper firewall profile. I just HAD to have more headroom in the back seat. Friendly caveat to AeroCanard Shoppers: Make sure you DO NOT use the prices you see on the AeroCad website. They are woefully out of date. They will gladly send you an updated price list. Example: Upper/Lower Cowling (Website) $350 Upper/Lower Cowling (Actual) $455 PLUS $100 shipping est. Hopefully, the shipping will come in a little less. I just ordered the upper cowling and learned the hard way Al Aldrich (Owner) says he'll have it to me in 30 days. (Tick Tick Tick...) I'll post an update regarding quality/timeliness when the product is delivered. I've bought other stuff when Jeff Russell was producing, so, I have a pretty good idea of the baseline. I hope things work well, as I really like the AeroCanard and would like to see it succeed.

As I recall, my wife Debbi, aka: Epoxy Lady, was a bit reserved about the whole plane building thing until her first RR. Afterwards, we've had times when we'd be enjoying TV in the evening, and she'd look over and say:" Aren't you going to work on the plane tonight? No lie.

Short answer: No. John Slade built his plane on his patio in S. Florida. IMHO 75-85°F is ideal for doing layups because the epoxy will cure at a favorable rate. At higher temps, you really have to move fast (unless you use one of the epoxies which have fast and slow hardeners. Then you can adjust the cure time for you speed and conditions.) That being said, you CAN run into layup quality problems trying to work in too cool of a temp.

I would say yes. You may want to check w/ Jeff Russel via AeroCad just to be sure.

If I remember correctly, it was about $3200 complete w/air conditioner, lights, 220v, wood deck, and inside walls. It's one of the few things I haven't plaguerized which worked as good as I thought it would.