Kent Ashton

You didn’t answer his question. 🙂. Very high frequency Omni-directional Range

These are nice (pic) . H/T Les Laidlaw. Not sure they are worth $400 though. .032 metal does not gain you anything and is harder to shape. I use .025" 6061 which is a good alloy. It is plenty stiff enough but can be bent fairly easily. Baffles are a chore no matter how you make them and you might end up remaking some of them. The process is very fiddly. I got some offest printer plates free from a printer. It is very thin metal and was useful for making test templates to cut out the final metal. Or posterboard. That'll work too.

I see that the UL390i is maybe 60 pounds lighter than an O-320 (220# vs 280) ( see https://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?31942-O-320-O-360-What-do-they-really-weigh ) but do you really want to pay $29K for an engine? You can probably buy a mid-time O-320 for $15K--half the cost. By the time you get to needing an engine, the price for the UL might be over $30K. It's up to you but I would look at how many they are selling. The ULs do not seem to be used on a lot of airplanes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULPower_Aero_Engines If I were to build another EZ, I'd plan for an O-320 again. It will be just as much fun and a lot cheaper. Yeah, I am a cheap guy 🙂 I saw that the guy who built an EZ with a UL put it up for sale for a short time at $95K then took it off. I'd like to know what happened there. I see that he had some small problems with the engine http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=jenatepilot&project=2121&category=9305&log=258399&row=51 Haven't read much about him lately. Came across this page with UL owners. http://www.myulpower.com/p/blog-page_13.html

I met a German fellow at Oshkosh who bought planes in the US and sold them in Europe. He ferried them (and unfortunately died on a ferry flight) but he said he made a decent return on those airplanes. So, yeah, I suspect it would be cost-effective to buy an airplane here and ship it or (gulp) ferry it. 🙂. The Rutan airplanes are not hard to fly—just a matter of learning speed control in the pattern and landing. A competent seller could probably get you comfortable in 2-5 hours. These airplanes vary in quality. Most are safe but some safe ones are ugly or need updating. The main thing is to get good pictures from the seller and a pre-buy inspection from a person familiar with them. See www.burnsideaerospace.com Or www.jetguys.co we just had a chap here turn down a Cozy project after he saw it close up. I think he could have seen the problems in the pictures, though. A lot of the value is in the engine so you want to see copies of the logbooks and question the seller about how often it was flown and how it was maintained. If they want to sell, they will accommodate you. If they’re not forthcoming, find another airplane. yeah, building is fun but so is refurbishing an airplane and getting it the way you want it.

I agree about the manual system but nobody is making them anymore. Not hard to make, though. it is very common to lengthen the nose. On my O-320 EZ with a longer nose and battery there, I still had to use 10-15# up by the rudder pedals to get what I considered a safe stall warning in the form of canard bob—and I am not a little guy—225#. With a lighter engine you may be OK

Very nice but a couple of ideas: Most people seem to prefer the wilhelmson electric nose lift which bolts in but barely leaves any space between the nose lift motor and the canard. That makes it hard to add a cover over the NG 30s to keep out drafts. It would help to make the NG 30s taller so the nose lift could be sealed with a simple cover over the NG 30s. Most people lengthen the nose but the pivot point for the NG strut is kept the same as for the stubbier nose. With a long nose, the pivot could be moved a couple inches forward and down. That would allow a more symmetrical nose profile with the longer nose, allow more space for the Wilhelmson nose lift below the canard, and give a bit more positive longeron angle which helps with rotation. While you’re redrawing the fuselage, you might as well incorporate the longer nose with a space for a battery as far forward as possibly. It is needed to balance the larger engines most people use. I believe the 103” dimension is only the length of the side foam, then the f-22 and firewall bulkheads are attached later

You can always build a hotbox later if you see the need. As for the materials, I have no idea if you could find them in Thailand. The "kit" is mostly an airframe kit and there are lots of other pieces to buy to complete the airplane. Before you go too far, I would start determining where you can get these materials (pic) I will copy the page and post it if that will help. Get an Aircraft Spruce catalog. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/ However, there are lots of other bits and pieces to acquire, for example, is there a canopy on the list? I don't think I see one. See also http://www.cozygirrrl.com/aircraftparts.htm and http://www.eznoselift.com/ A fair number of parts have changed. We mostly use Matco brakes vs Cleveland. A better fuel valve than the Weatherhead model. Electric noselift vs manual lift. The materials have not been updated to reflect that. You mostly learn that by reading canard sites and builder sites. I really think you would do better with a complete kit by another manufacturer or you would probably save money by buying a Cozy or Long-EZ in the states and shipping it to Thailand in a shipping crate. Check my "sales I've seen" thread. Below is Marc's list of Cozys for sale.

Ha! That hotbox might be why Charles is selling his half-finished project. Build airplanes, not hotboxes! But the hotbox is needed IMO. Don't they have a Winter in Thailand? I made mine too large (pic) but I generally left the light bulb plugged in during the period I was building. I guess I kept mine over 100 deg. I used a Michael Engineering pump on the Cozy but on my EZ project it was about as fast to use a digital scale and a spreadsheet. I kept the epoxy in the cans, pierced a hole in the can to dispense and sealed it with a screw. The plastic pumps are OK but you can make a spreadsheet for different kinds of epoxy and use the digital scale.

You might get some useful info here: http://eaathai.com/ or here http://thaiflyingclub.com/linkaircraftsale.html There is more aviation in Thailand than I would have expected.

There are Cozy/EZ builders in Australia? That help? I would look at the materials and see what the shipping would cost to Thailand. A pallet of materials (foam & fiberglass mainly) could be shipped from Aircraft Spruce West but there are CozyGirrl parts, canopy, landing gear struts and other important parts that don't come in a kit and have to be separately acquired and shipped. I would think a true, complete kit airplane would suit you better and get you in the air quicker. You could fly the airplane OK and you are not too tall. I am not familiar with any Thai homebuilding.

What a helpful spouse! 🙂 It is probably best to tear all the wiring out and rewire. It's likely less work than trying to splice into what is already there. The main source for wiring homebuilts is www.aeroelectric.com (Bob Nuckolls) which has wiring diagrams, tips, and a great instruction book that will explain aircraft wiring. http://www.aeroelectric.com/ See "Getting Started" on this page http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles.html His book is well worth the price http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/pub/pub.html but he has lots of good reading on his website Nuckolls is also good about answering questions on the Matronics Aeroelectric List which can be linked from the same site. For now, read Bob Nuckolls's bookclean up (remove) the old wiring, collect your solder, stripping and crimping tools and examine the "Z-" diagrams from Aeroelectric with your A&P and figure out how you want to wire the airplane. Come back with more specific questions. Good luck.

For future reference Bruce, the FAA has ruled that federally-assisted airports must accommodate "maintenance, repair, refurbishment" and "construction" in their hangars. See rule here at page 39810 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/15/2016-14133/policy-on-the-non-aeronautical-use-of-airport-hangars FAA Q and A here: https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/hangar_use/ Airports do what they want unless persons are willing to fight for their rights. I am getting ready to file a 14 CFR Part 13 complaint on just this topic. Clearly, an airplane that is out-of-annual or under repair or refurbishment is not "airworthy" but those repairs must be accommodated.

I am trying to generate some interest in a T-hangar partnership at a local airport near Charlotte with a long waiting list--Charlotte-Monroe Exec. KEQY. You chaps might be interested in the subject. In my experience, the major impediment to getting private hangars at federally-assisted pubic airports is "reversion" clauses where the hangar reverts to airport ownership in, say, 25 years, without any compensation. It doesn't have to be this way. As long as the airport can regain the property at will to make other airport improvements, the FAA will go along (I think). My preference is a buyout of the hangar owner or worst case, the hangar owner can remove the structure. See para 6.6a here https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

What is it about Nampa, Idaho? For years I have seen ads for aircraft kit sellers, airplanes and projects at this airport. Must be a hotbed of aviation. Look at all the hangars! When I die I want to go to Nampa 🙂

https://groups.google.com/g/cozy_builders has members from Oz. If you PM me your email address I will cross post your inquiry and you might get lucky.