ekisbey

Although I'm planning to build the aircraft with few or no changes to the overall design, I can't say with absolute certainty that I won't decide otherwise at some point down the road. What I was looking for were possible "catch-all" simple changes that have little impact on the overall layout of the fuselage and bulkheads which would allow for easier changes or modifications later down the line. Although, now that I think about it, I can see John's comment on the time consuming effects of even small cahnges coming back to haunt me. Guess I'm going to have to just wait and see what I come up with while building.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of embedding wires. That smacks of a "permanent" installation that's hard to inspect and harder to remove/repair. Embedded pipes on the other hand make more sense. An embedded Al line for vaccuum, for instance, might make things easier down the road, but I'll want to be more familiar with the plans before I consider actually "embedding" anything. I was thinking more along the lines of a dedicated wiring "duct," similar to John's idea of using his heating duct for running pipes and wires. Perhaps something that runs a similar route to the provisions offered in the plans. Is it feasible to install a dedicated wiring conduit that accomodates the bulkheads and obstacles you mention? I realize that this also can make for difficulty in inspecting or repairing wires but it's considerably friendlier than something that is physically embedded into the airframe.

I'm in Killeen, about an hour north of Austin, maybe as much as four hours from Houston. That's a considerable drive but it could be worse. Cozy builders in Texas seem rather sparse. I do know that there were Cozy builder(s) in the Dallas area as recently as three years ago, but where they are now is anybody's guess. I found a note between builders in some website somewhere referencing getting together some weekend and helping with a project in that area. Where I saw it I can't recall. A few months from now I should be well into the construction process. Right now, however, I'm still waiting on the plans to arrive. Then there will be several weeks while I order materials for the first few chapters. I expect to get started at the latest before the end of February. You're welcome to come check it out, though it'll be a while before I get very deep into the project.

Anyone know of a builder in the nearby Texas area? Nearby for me means less than 300 miles from Austin, or anywhere between Houston and Dallas. I'm gonna start building very soon, and I'd like to get a hands on look-see at a job in progress. I know a lot of you in other states keep a standing invitation for visitors/slaves, but in my line of work, out of state travel is not feasible unless it's only a few hours away (guess I need an airplane! ). Thanks.

Okay, so for someone who hasn't actually begun building yet (I plan to start very soon, perhaps late this month), what provisions can I make early on that might smooth the wiring process? I would think that now (while the plane is still imaginary and therefore flexible) is the best time to plan such things.

I did! Actually, I talked to Nat about buying the plans on the 31st, ran into some bank trouble (I discovered I had a daily "purchasing limit" on my debit card the hard way), and saw the transaction go through on the 1st. Don't know what the plans numbers are yet but it's pretty exciting to get going with this first step, even if it's an easy one. I was taking vacation in Tucson, so I used the opportunity to contact Nat and drive up to Mesa on the 21st, to see the plane first hand and meet him in person. I wasn't prepared to fly and visibility seemed lousy (there was FOG in Arizona-- who would have believed it!),so we didn't go up, but the meeting was informative. I was mostly concerned about whether I would comfortably fit in the aircraft, and aside from the pilot's side rudder pedals being set up for Nat, I fit just fine into his plane. 6'4" really does fit comfortably! We talked about raising the canopy and moving the seat back, and decided that lifting the canopy wasn't really necessary, based upon how well I fit. I had plenty of room and I liked the way it felt, and the visibility was impressive. I didn't get into the back seats, but from the looks of it I think that even I could squeeze in back there, though it might be a tight fit in the hips if there were two of me. I think I'll have to get inventive with the stick, since I have really long arms, and his was about four to six inches short from what I consider "comfortable." The panel was within easy reach, I could touch everything on the entire panel without having to stretch, and didn't feel cramped at all. The fact that there's so much visibility out the bubble canopy if probably the prime reason for the sense of space. With so much to see it's hard to feel cramped. Also, as I mentioned, I couldn't even reach the rudder pedals, becasue they were four inches up my shin from my toes, but there was plenty of room beyond the pedals for my size 15 workboots. What with moving the seat back, moving the pedals forward, and adding the adjustable pedals option (or even just making some to fit my length and feet), I think I'll be fine. The best thing to come out of the trip involved getting my wife in a face-to-face with THE Cozy (the "as advertised" model), and a fortunate coincidence on the ramp. We got there an hour early to eliminate any chance of being late and to use the time to walk around and see some of the other aircraft tied down around the field. There were several homebuilts, and quite a few very beautiful aircraft, but none looked as good as the Cozy. Seeing the Cozy after getting her used to the look of all the Cessnas and Mooneys had a dramatic impact. She was suitably impressed, and began to feel much more comfortable about the plane. Then, on the way out, we came across what I think was a Velocity that we hadn't seen earlier. It didn't look half as good as the Cozy. I don't know whether it was a finished product or not, but the difference in appearance was dramatic, and my wife was sold. She was supportive and showed some enthusiasm before, but now she's truly excited. In all, I'm very happy. I feel confident now I made the right choice. My reccomendation to anyone debating whether or not to go for the Cozy; GO SEE A FLYING EXAMPLE and then compare it to everything else you see on the ramp. The difference really is dramatic. Now I gotta figure out where I'll find the space to build the damn thing.

I think that at 1700 degrees you're going to want the heat shield, regardless.

I've considered the handhelds as well. I'll probably get at least a handheld transciever with a limited nav capability. I really haven't been able to make up my mind about a GPS. A full blown GPS system for the aircraft will cost a significant wad of cash I could put towards an EFIS, and the GPS functionality is one of the big selling points of the EFIS in the first place. Not much sense in doubling up, unless I intended install a setup capable of flying a GPS approach, which I don't. A Handheld GPS would tend to be GA specific, including maps, and hence not much use in the future if I wanted to use it for other applications once I aquire an EFIS. Additionally, to my way of thinking, keeping the handheld GPS as a backup doesn't make much sense. I'll have other things to worry about if the EFIS fails mid-flight. That's what charts are for. I do like the PC GPS idea. It's not a dedicated tool with a single function. In fact, I'm suddenly getting all kinds of ideas of things I could do with a laptop that interfaces with the aircraft. Anyone have any opinions on radios with an integrated CDI display, as opposed to a traditional seperate panel-mounted CDI? There's several NAV/COM setups I've looked at which seem functionally identical save for this feature and the price.

Still researching here. I'm currently investigating radios and such. I was hoping someone could point me towards a decent radio setup, NAV/COM, transponder, intercom, etc. I'm not completely comfortable right now with the thought of used or overhauled setups, so I'll probably end up forking out the loot for a new system. I'm leaning right now towards the NARCO MK 12D w/slope, and the AT 150 xponder. That's gonna bunch great big holes in my wallet and I was wondering if there's something better for the same cost or less. I haven't investigated GPS setups yet as I'm still debating whether I'll even want it. Eventually I'll likley go after the Blue Mountain EFIS but in the meantime I'm planning for a (very) basic VFR setup that I can upgrade to IFR should I want it. Also, I'm hearing talk of Mode-S transponders. Are these likely to become a requirement for VFR aircraft in the US in the forseeable future?

>minimize drag That was my planend solution as well. I don't plan on any major plans deviations at this time, I suspect I'll mostly limit myself cosmetic afterthoughts such as wheel pants and fairings. A couple questions: 1.> Mr. Slade mentions cowl flaps. Can you elaborate? I have an idea what they are, but I haven't dealt with an aircraft that uses them as of yet. 2.> How much will the quality of the finish affect drag? Do diffrent finishes have an impact on drag? I was reading an article about something called "ambient" drag too. I'm intensely curious about this aspect.

Okay. Now I have a headache. I need an ice pack.

This apparently was written some time ago (so please don't yell at me if it's old news!) but I thought I'd throw this out for all us new guys. It's the best written and unbiased review of a flying Mark IV that I've yet to come across. Lots of hard data and numbers. If you've got performance questions, odds are you can find it here. http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/Cozy%20IV%20APR.pdf

I've seen references to a Vne of 190 kt, or about 220 mph. Anyone care to back me up on that?

Other forums of similar layout often have a locked thread on the main menu titled "Important: Read this before posting." It lays down the basic rules and etiquette for new members, and can direct them towards FAQs or give them an idea of how to find relevant information without having to start a new thread. Something else that's simple for us to do is politely tell someone the proper category for their thread if they post it in the wrong area before it gets too much attention, or even "move" it for them by starting an identical thread in the proper category/subject and copying the pertinent information. Just a thought.

I wouldn't hold out hope for any paints developed by the military making their way down to the civilian market any time soon. The military uses primarily CARC type paint, and it's quite toxic in its liquid form. It requires personnel trained in HAZMAT handling procedures just to store the stuff. Anything they come up with in the near future will likely fall into this same category, as the CARC we're using now already has near-infra-red properties to fool nightvision. I don't know about the rest of you, but I like children with ten fingers and toes more than a plane I can paint black.

Saw it, decided not to mention it.

Here I've found yet another engine type that I've not seen anyone mention yet. This one I'm more dubious about. Smells fishy, if you ask me. www.dynacam.com

You forgot the blind goose deflector. On a more serious note; One point that's been made here but hasn't really been commented on, is that there really are several sources of information with comparable information content to this one, and not all of us rookies know they exist, much less utilize them. Perhaps more effort should be made to direct those of us with seemingly unending questions towards those lists before we light this forum afire though ignorance. Obviously, there is a depth of knowledge archived in the other lists that this forum cannot hope to provide, at least not at this time nor in the near future. As membership grows and the history of this forum deepens I'm sure that will change, but I for one have been startled into giving more attention to the lists and the archives than I have been, and already this afternoon have learned a number of valuable tidbits.

I agree that "finding" an engine isn't too difficult, but I'm uneasy when they start saying "call about a quote on the price." That says to me that they'll sell me the engine for however much they can fool me into thinking I can afford. As a business practice I suppose it's sound, but since I'm not very knowlegeable about aircraft engines in the first place any price I get quoted is immediately suspect. The next time a salesperson asks me "isn't that a great deal?" I'm gonna shove their great deal someplace dark and warm. I'm always tempted to scream "How the heck do I know if it's a great deal or not, I just told you I know nothing about it!" I was hoping to find a website that can give a hard price line on a range of engines of different sizes and types by various manufacturers. I suppose I'm going to just have to start calling folks and comparing notes. I can't firm up on any kind of budget until I know exactly how much I can expect to pay, and a ballpark figure for two or three general categories-- let alone specific engines-- just isn't going to cut it. I'm going to pay whatever it takes to get an engine that anyone who rides with me can feel comfortable about. That pretty much eliminates conversions for the near future. I've given up on inexpensive. Still looking, I guess.

This forum is more accessile. I don't need to have access to my e-mail, no setting up parasite accounts at work, and the history of topics are not going to disappear when I arbitrarily decide to reformat my hard drive (I do that sometimes). Not only that, but there's a link to this forum right off of the Cozy website front page. It's easier to find for those of us who are new to the subject. Third, the active participants here seem to be mainly Cozy builders with a current website detailing their construction status. The other lists are full of builders of other types of aircraft who's planes were finished years ago. I've only read the archives, but a lot of them seem opinionated and unimaginative, as well as intolerant of new builders with old questions and ideas. It's almost as though it's been so long since they built their plane they have forgotten what the learning and discovery process was like, and how much fun the rest of us are having pondering the what-ifs.

What does "well supported" mean? In other words, are you supporting only the flying surfaces or are you making a frame or a jig for the whole aircraft tot sit in?

I'm not so worried about the "this side up" signs, gadgets, gee-whizzery or whatever else I put on the panel as I am about the engine. I'm finding myself forced to plan for a certified, and look for an alternative along the way as they present themselves. That's the only way I can be sure when it's time for the rubber band I can wind it up and go. What bothers me is the lack of information I'm finding on just where one would go to buy an engine. Are there really that few engines being manufactured these days? It's hard to believe.

Odd, the timing of that, plus the fact it's a canard. My wife and I were having a very in-depth discussion last night about security for the aircraft and what the odds of it being stolen were. We both know that aircraft are sometimes stolen, but my wife seemed to think I was over-reacting and it wasn't much of a problem, whereas I'm a bit paranoid about it-- it's a huge investment to lose! I showed this article to her at lunch and now she's like me. I put together a short list of questions to which we have no answers: -Just how bad is the problem with aircraft theft? -How does insurance handle it? -What precautions are the most effective? -Can a physical anti-theft system (such as a kill-switch or critical removeable component) be SAFELY integrated into the airframe such that it won't cause the aircraft to suddenly decide it's being stolen mid-flight? I've been coming up with all sorts of half baked ideas all afternoon and discarding them. I have no faith in alarms, and little more in a locking canopy. I'm sure this Velocity had at least SOME form of protection. My wife suggested making the nosewheel removeable, but I countered that it might decide to remove itself during takeoff/landing. I'd also considered fuel system components and discarded them for the same reason. Anyone have info on the subject?

I think what he's saying is composite aircraft can get "sunburned" too, and sunburn can happen regardless of temperature, even on an overcast windy day-- UV goes through clouds. The light color helps prevents both UV damage to the material under the skin and keeps it cooler too. I'm not sure about silver, I seem to recall a number of times where a shiny reflective surface in the sun has caused much discomfort... Think if it this way. Put two folding chairs outside in the sun on a hot august afternoon, one painted gloss white and the other a silver color, maybe even chrome. If you're wearing shorts, or less, which chair is less likely to burn you? I had a similar situation a few years ago at a BBQ and chose the shiny chair, and walked around the rest of the afternoon with a blistered backside. The white chair was considerably cooler. I suppose it's possible the type of paint used could have been a big factor, it's hard to say for sure. I for one will plan for white with a small amount of brightly colored trim, for a cheerful sporty look. I'm not sure I could talk my in-laws into a menacing-looking dark colored aircraft.

I'm STILL researching costs, building requirements, pro's, con's, brands of peanut butter, and aything else I can think of before diving in this spring (I'll be getting the plans for Xmas, according to my wife--here's hoping). Budget has been and continues to be our largest concern. Our biggest budgetary concern is, of course, the engine. My monthly budget for the plane is only a few hundred a month, based on what we've managed over the last few years. I'm looking at meeting sum financial requirements for the total airframe costs at around two to three years, taking into account bursts of both activity and inactivity, sans avionics and the engine. Construction could take me longer, but I doubt it, not with two of us working on it together. One of the selling points was this was going to get the two of us out from in front of the television. I hinted that maybe the hundred bucks a month we spend on cable could go towards the plane instead, though this met with limited enthusiasm. Anyhow, I've examined the data available on the engines that are reccommended for the aircraft, and then looked at the alternatives. There were a few I wasn't too hot about, such as the twin Subarus, and a few I was excited about. The turbine engine from ATP scored nine out of a possible ten drops of drool. Another high scorer was the Mazda 13B and it's apparently large community of converts. It looks promising, and it's got a lot of benefits compared to only a very few credible drawbacks, but my bigest concern is it's not "proven," at least not enough to my satisfaction. Two or three years from now, perhaps, I might change my mind, but from what I've seen there hasn't been a lot of substantial progress in the last two years, so we'll have to see. Anyhow, having examined the alternatives, I'm back to looking at the certified aircraft engines. I'm quite a bit taller than average and over 200 pounds, so after reading about the Franklin with its greater mass and horsepower, combined with its lower cost, I'm leaning in that direction. I was curious about how many planes were flying with engine, how many were building, and if anyone could elaborate the pros and cons. I checked out the updates in the online newsletters from Nat's experiment with the Franklin, and got decent warm-and-fuzzy reactions after explaining it to my wife. Additionally, I'm having trouble find out just who sells aircraft engines. After two months of searching, I've found a grand total of three reputable looking websites (and several not so reputable) that advertise aircraft engines, all Lycomings, but none specify price or inventory. Any info is appreciated here.