ekisbey

The build itself can cause weight loss -- your first exotherm is gotta be worth at least a pound from the stress.

...Interesting, anyhow. Reminds me of those guys from South America... similar engine setup, though theirs was not a rotary. Can't remember their names...

Scaling up the aircraft is indeed akin to desinging a whole different machine. It's also unneccessary. In general, its not the overall size of the Cozy that's the issue; the useful payload is sufficient for persons of larger build and there's plenty of spare legroom. The big problems arise in hip space and shoulder room and the overall shape of the interior. In the Cozy, very tall persons find problems can arise with headroom and range of motion -- your head feels very close to the canopy and the distance from seat to stick is less than the distance from wrist to elbow. These issues have largely been solved over the years by various builders who had similar problems. Many variations of these mods, such removing the center console for more hip room, moving the seatback for extra legroom and seat-to-stick distance, and raising the canopy for more headroom, can be stacked together to free up significant space inside the aircraft. Lengthened strakes such as those implemented by the Cozy Girrrls also help with this issue. Raising the leg cutouts in the IP help those of us with long legs get in and out more easily witout the contortions. Reducing the thickness of the cushions frees up headroom, room in the leg cutouts, and additional legroom. What these mods all have in common is that they either make no changes to the exterior shape or they make changes known to have a negligible impact on the performace/safety of the aircraft. Scaling up the aircraft as a whole has been debated over and over and over again, here and elsewhere. Several people are actully doing it, and one or two are even said to be flying. Unfortunately, not one has (so far) posted hard numbers or evidence from acutal flight testing which demonstrate the safety of their modification. I'd be hesitant to pursue such an approach without further evidence that what I was doing was safe and didn't involve any hidden "gotcha's."

You'll fit. Only just, but there are some options to improve the situation. There are several committed Cozy builders approximately your size from 6'3" and up, and those of us who've sat in a completed Cozy report pretty much the same thing; it's a tight fit, but tolerable. Beats the heck out of a 152, lemme tell 'ya! I'm your size, a bit lighter, and had a good experience in a "stock" Cozy. There are quite a few tried-and-true mods to the interior of the aircraft that can be made to improve dimensions. Adding them together yeilds a surprising amount of space. Changes which alter the exterior dimesions of the aircraft (especially width) have fewer examples and are generally frowned upon, with a few exceptions, such as longer strakes or increasing canopy height. Those two mods alone, however, can yeild significant results. Do a seach for "cabin width" here on the forum, you'll find a lot of info on the subject. These discussions have excellent info to get you started: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=393 http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372 http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1429 http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1249 Also, on "that other forum" http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=1793 http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=2150

Thanks, Marc.

Try this: 143.84.72.2/doim_denied/PersonalPages.gif

Okay, well, I'm still here, and this is from a .MIL domain, and I can see the pic that Jon posted just fine. So first allow me to fend off this foot that's trying to feed itself to me. Now, I'm not sure exactly why we occaisionally get locked out, but we sometimes do. It's possible that there is a key text string or something in the link that triggers the filter depending on where the link goes (such as personal pages). Like I said, I'm no web admin. It's inconsistent. Some Cozy Builder's web pages I can view, others get locked out because they're "Personal Pages." Some pictures I can see just fine, others lock out the whole website. It's not really something that's going to change my whole life, but it will make accessing this site pretty inconvenient while I'm away. As I said before, we're a pretty small minority here; if the consensus turns out to be pictures are the way to go, we'll cope, I'm sure. I tried to post a copy of what we call "big blue," (Access Denied!) but it doesn't seem to work. Oh well.

I've looked at your strake pictures myself and they displayed just fine. Had the option to display them been enabled I would have been able to see the page, along with the pictures, with no trouble. However, had the picture you posted above been on the page, I would have been locked out of the site completely. I don't know why; I'm no web admin. I do know, however, that I'm not the only person on this forum that has this issue. I understand this is only a very small number of people, but are the pictures that necessary? Interestingly, I don't belong to any forums that DO display the images.

Not to patronize anyone unintentionally, but unless I'm mistaken, 99 dB is (ideally) twice as loud as 96 dB... And I'll admit un-ashamedly that I had to look that up to refresh my memory.

I hate to be negative, but please don't. For some reason, the filters at DOIM frequently deny access to sites with that kind of content, as evidenced by the fact I can't see the picture that mpafleur just linked. There's a good chance over the next year that my sole internet access could come through a NIPR.MIL domain, meaning I, for one, would be SOL. Most folks won't have this problem, but making this move could potentially lock a few of us completely out of the forum. Forcing a link to each picture the way we do now, while inconvenient for some, speeds up the load times for those on dial-up, and will probably keep overall bandwidth requirements on the site a little lower as well (less $$ for whomever maintains it). Allowing the pictures is simply not necessary. It's a small matter to click on the link to see the picture. Just a thought.

Somehow, I have a hard time imagining any problems with horny teenagers, especially if the event is available as a link only from within this forum, and by those who have registered a user name. I can think of few things that I would have found, as a teenager, less appealing than a bunch of "old farts" talking about Epoxy allergies or the compression properties of BID used with MGS 285...

Okay. I'm sold. I'll be subscribing tonight.

I believe last night's experment proved pretty conclusively that we have enough interest and membership to make a chat room worthwhile. There are many uses for that type of intereaction, not just limited to goofing around. There was a short discussion on the Yahoo chat client about the potential uses of videoconferencing, though it might be beyond the scope of some of the free clients that would be available for this forum. Would it be possible to include a simple link somewhere that triggers a 3rd Party chat program, such as Messenger or Netmeeting? AOL Instant Messenger is capable of triggering a NetMeeting session amongst multiple users, drawing them all to the same connection (whoever initiated the session). It's a safe bet, I think, that 95% of folks here are using Windows based software, which typically has this functionality built-in; no downloads required, which scared a couple folks away last night. There's also a function at the toolbar of my Internet Explorer titled "discuss." I've never used this before,so I'm not sure what it does, but I suspect it might be yet another form of chat software. In the end, though, I believe simplest method would be to set up a chat room in Yahoo with a password available on this forum to keep out the bots. You know, keep it simple? Just a thought.

I said this in an earlier post, for those of you not following this thread. A little bird whipered in my ear, and I took another look at the AS&S site. I now see a breakdown of kits, parts, and prices that I didn't see before. Either I simply missed it and didn't see it before, or it was added very recently. I suspect the latter. Either way, this is an encouraging sign, IMHO, that AS&S is truly making an effort here. Just a thought.

Talk to John Slade, and read his website. He's perhaps the only "authority" so far on Rotary installations for the MkIV, since he's closest to flying, and certainly the strongest proponent. I, too, am strongly considering the Mazda installation, and have been paying very close attention to his progress. Don't make the mistake, however, of letting your engine decision delay the start of the building process. It's going take a year or two of real progress on your airframe, at the soonest, before you need to seriously consider your power options. Something can easily change by then, and there will be much more information available on the success of the Mazda in a Cozy IV.

For the few layups I've done so far, I used the scale, and found it straightforward and intuitive once I had it working right. I haven't done any of the really big layups so I'm not certain whether this will hold true or not down the road. I've also not yet purchased a pump, though I fully intend to do so. It'll be interesting to see which I prefer, since at this point I'm perfectly content to continue to use the scales.

YOU CAN DO IT, *IF* you take time to consider where your money is going prior to building the aircraft, and how important the airplane is going to rank on your budget once you start. I'm in the military so I can use myself as an example without worrying about privacy (our pay scales are no secret ) My projected income (sans combat pay and the like) for this year ('04) will top out somewhere around 35k after allowances. My taxable income is somewhere in the mid twenties. My wife is a full time housewife and mother, so there's no additional income. We live quite comfortably on those numbers, though admittedly Uncle Sam saves us a lot on healthcare and travel expenses. Nevertheless, we don't have a lot of excess. By those numbers, I don't make much more than you do. When I first decided to build, a couple of years ago, I made quite a bit less money than I do now. My wife and I sat down and figured out that if we eliminated some (very few) of our luxuries and planned ahead for the more expensive items, we could pay for everything (the basics, anyhow) in about five to seven years. And that was all assuming I made the same amount anually as I did when I started, not more, which was a tempting assumption to make. What I ended up doing was opening a new bank account to be used exclusively as an airplane fund. I set up a monthly transfer from my other accounts, and I've never missed a payment since. Any additional monies or unexpected funds (like the child tax I recieved last year) go into that account as available, and it's grown far faster than my original (conservative) estimates called for. Unexpected delays, or long breaks in construction, have the side effect of leaving more money available in the account when you finally do return to building. In my case, I've had a very busy year of numerous short military deployments, such as a few weeks in Montana fighting wildfires, and several short training deployments. This year I'll be heading overseas. By the time I'm ready to resume building, I'll have enough money in the account to pay for the airframe outright, plus much of the avionics, or perhaps a good deal on an engine. In the end, it all boils down to how much you want the airplane, and how you justify spending the money. For guys in our income bracket it takes a bit more planning and self-control than those who are better off financially, but there's absolutely nothing keeping you from building the plane. We'll just build a bit slower. However long it takes me, and however many delays my profession causes me, eventually, as long as I keep plugging away at it, I will finish the aircraft. I will be a man who has built an airplane, owns an airplane, and I will fly that airplane. I will be anything but an "average Joe." Build it. In the garage. In your yard. In the neighbor's empty barn. In the kitchen. In the attic. On the balcony. In the spare bedroom. On a budget. In your spare time. On your lunch break. While you're waiting on your laundry. When you can't sleep. When you find yourself sitting in front of the TV. The list goes on forever. Just build it, and don't worry about the what-ifs. Think of it as a hobby, and let the satisfaction of the building process come from conquering the obstacles that conspire to keep you from finishing the plane. Build it.

He might make it a three-place, and design it to be carried underneath a much larger aircraft to high altitude. Then he'd probably put a rocket engine in it and break the sound barrier, mostly to prove that he could, followed shortly thereafter by short jaunts into sub-orbital space...

You were misinformed. You shouldn't need to order the section kits if you're ordering the chapter kits already, as the foam, fiberglass and hardware **should** be already included in that kit's total price. You might want take note of the individual who gave you that information and report it back to AS&S. Try calling back and see if they give you the same information again. Look at the Wicks Aircraft site. They have similar kits by chapter (who knows for how long) for about the same price (six dollars more expensive on the Chapter 4 kit). You'll notice on the Wicks list, it's itemized by component/material. Since the prices are about the same and the kits are for the same construction, it's fairly safe to assume that the AS&S kit includes pretty much the same stuff. Hope this helps.

Just a note to those interested, as I haven't seen this mentioned by anyone yet. I just looked at the AS&S website and found they now offer materials "kits," by chapter, for the Mark IV. Cozy Mark IV Kits They also have listed kits sorted by material type, such as "Section II Fiberglass" and priced it, presumably enough material of the required type for the entire section. There's no link that I see that lists what's included in the kit you're ordering, so you're going on their word that it's correct. I would hope that, for their sake, it's all there and correctly labeled/identified. I've not purchased any "large" orders yet from anyone, just enough to start Chapter 4, since I've been hampered by numerous (damn near monthly) short-term military deployments over the last year. I'll be ordering for the next several chapters at my first opportunity, possibly for the the entire first section. I haven't priced against Wicks yet, but right now, I'm favoring AS&S. Someone will probably beat me to the punch on using these listings to place an order, since I won't be in a position to do so for a year at least. If someone does, I think we'd all greatly appreciate it if they gave a detailed report of service and accuracy for comparison, since plenty of those already exist from Wicks customers. Good luck, to whomever goes first.

That's the one. There's another one somewhere that shows what temperature the fiberglass loses strength, including adjustments for post-curing changes to the curve. Superimpose the two and you have what you're looking for. Glad you found that, I'd been meaning to save that anyhow.

This is another frequently asked question that is hard to find easily. It's answered several times on this forum, but I, too, had trouble finding the thread. I think the rule goes something like "paint it any color you like, as long as it's white." There are a few flying MkIV's that aren't white (yellow comes to mind) but they're very few in number. There have been several analyses of surface temperature in direct sunlight on a broad range of colors, though whether any these were performed on a fiberglass-foam sandwich composite structure, and what effect said structure might have upon the heat characteristics as compared to the control material used in the tests is anyone's guess. Generally, you're safest painting the areas exposed to direct sunlight white. Areas that never see direct sunlight, such as under the wings (unless you intend to park upside down ), are less critical. I saw a chart somewhere a few months back showing relative surface temperatures for various colors, along with the points on the temperature chart where various materials lost strength and such... but now I can't find it. It's around here somewhere, I'll keep looking.

I suppose the first question should be whether or not a propeller-driven Cozy can even reach 346 TAS at 25k feet. He mentioned that the Cozy III was running flat out at 152 TAS at 23k, and the III isn't a whole lot slower than the IV... Anyhow, I've stated before I'm no engineer, and I'm not trying to cut anyone down, but it sounds to me like something to explore through CFD or extensive wind tunnel testing, rather than in actual flight. This isn't something to find out experimentally unless you've bought yourself a good parachute. Unless I misunderstood Marc, and assuming he's correct (he usually is), here's how I read it: Your first indication of the type of stall he's describing would be a sudden loss of altitude and an increase in speed, associated with a downward pitching movement. By that time it's probably too late to recover, as the pitch and altitude change only accelerate the aircraft and contribute to the cause of the stall. I suspect you'd lose the canard from flutter and lord knows what else long before you hit the ground. Perhaps if you were super-observant you could cut the throttle, put out your belly board, and open up the rudders to shed some speed if you thought you were on the verge of the stall, but from Marc's description it doesn't sound like you get much in the way of warning. I wonder if there's someone here with access to the simlation tools to demonstrate this effect short of actually trying it?

Waitaminute-- finding out if a cozy can become a $50k lawn dart from 25k feet is your concept of fun?

Uh, wow... Not sure what triggered that tidbit of info Marc, but that's one of the most intriguing tidbits I've seen on this forum. Thanks. Not that I ever plan on going that high or fast, but that's an aspect of the canard design I had never considered, nor was I aware of...