ekisbey

I don't care how lousy the service is, their catalog makes for GREAT reading when I'm on the can.

ROFL

I forsee jokes about fire extinguishers and field-expedient beer coolers... Of course, we could place CO2 bottles to trigger if the wings catch fire, but that would probably ice them up all over again and we'd be back to square one.

At least the ice would be gone.

You'd need a system of some sort to force the exhaust gasses through the pipes without changing the back-pressure to the engine, with a fail-safe to ensure that if the system were somehow clogged there would be a way to bypass and vent exhaust normally. Hooking the exhaust directly to a system like that incurs little quirks in back-pressure and compression few people are qualified to deal with. I'd be more comfortable with a system that can be isolated from something as critical as the engine, like a heat exchanger between your de-icer and the cooling system.

Speaking of turbines on canards, Beechcraft has a twin turboprop canard called the Starship. Anyone seen it?

I'm laughing here... First we're talking about flying in icing condidtions and now it's icing with lightning. The weather just keeps getting worse and worse! Okay, where were we? A twin tubine powered, retractible gear, air conditioned, pressurized, de-icing, lightning proof composite aircraft equipped with a ballistic chute and a blind goose deflector and can be built in a 12x20 space with a pocket knife and a smart level (or a dousing rod, if you're not into the whole smart level thing).

I was just reminded of something an old man I knew once said about building aircraft. He was dirty, unkempt, smelly, foul mouthed, and rude, but he built the most beautiful flying models. He told me "Build a plane to survive a crash and it will. Crash, that is. Build it to FLY."

Building upon the engine-heated cooolant concept... I'm not comfortable with the idea of a system of tubes or ducts running under the skin. In order to be effective, you'd need a very large number of fairly closely spaced "capillaries." It takes a certain amount of pressure to force liquid through a tube. The longer the tube, the more pressure required. Smaller tubes take even more pressure. Each bend or joint or valve adds even MORE pressure. Add to that the altitude and we're talking a lot of PSI. A leak in a system like this isn't going to be a minor event; the pressure required might reach explosive decompression level. The thought of scalding coolant blasting through easily melted foam at high pressure inside a confined space seems to qualify in my mind as a Very Bad Thing. This isn't to say the idea doesn't have merit, but all those tubes are not only complex and open the possibility of leaks, they're also going to be heavy. Don't forget to add the weight of the coolant as well. Since the materials we're working with here aren't exactly heat tolerant, you'd also need a method of monitoring the heat being dissapated and where it's being dissapted from. All that heat has to go through the foam before it can get to the air outside. I just thought of this: how about using a web of thin copper tape to distribute the heat from a larger central pipe(s) deeper in wing? A larger pipe would allow a higher volume of coolant at a lower pressure and could be better protected by the surrounding material. Copper tape doesn't leak. It's also somewhat less invasive to the structure of the wing than ducts or tubes would be, and can run closer to the surface.

It's like a myth; it grows in the telling. Are you implying there are builders NOT using a smart level?? What a horrific thought!

Back to the subject at hand.. Some folks here seem to be implying that ice is the achilles heel for the Cozy. I've heard before about the sensitivity of canards to changes in airflow brought about by ice or misting/water dropets. As I understood it, the original airfoil used in all Rutan aircraft caused the plane to experience a noticable change in trim when the aircraft was flying in rain or heavy clouds. Something to do with micro-droplets of water altering the laminar airflow, and while another airfoil (roncz?) was less susceptible to this, it provided somewhat less lift. I also recall that later, after the airfoil had indeed been changed, someone experimented with grooving the surface of the original airfoil in such a way as to stabilize the airflow in the presence of water droplets, solving the problem. Regardless, it sounds to me that the Cozy is no more or less dangerous than any other aircraft in icing conditions. I was always told that ice is a Very Bad Thing, regardless of aircraft. Since prevention is the best medicine, and I don't know of any incidents where icing caused a Rutan-designed or derived canard to crash, I'm not particularly concerned about suddenly crashing if I run into light icing conditions. If I find myself in severe icing conditions, then I'll probably be deserving of the next Darwin Award. Finally, I have a possible concern about the concept proposed by John Slade: How well will the heat provided by these pipes under the skin be transmitted? Isn't fiberglass and foam a pretty good insulator? And if so, how much expansion can you expect in the material surrounding the pipes? I'd be concerned about a change in the shape of the airfoil caused by the expanding material. How would one test this? I'm not against a de-icing system. Good idea, but probably uneccessary. However, as someone else said, we now have a twin turbine powered, pressurized, full retract, de-icing cozy that can be built in a 12x20 space with a knife and a smart-level. What say we go for variable geometry next?

What size for the jigsaw?

Speaking of workshop setups... First: What would the minimum reccommended dimensions of an enclosed workspace be for building a Cozy? 20X20 sounds plenty roomy, but when all's said and done I may not have room for something that size. I'm not likely to have a garage to work in so a shed/shop(tent?) will be a must. Second: I assume that there's a list of the tools you're likely going to need listed in the plans, but can anyone give me a rundown on the absolute have-to-have's and ought-to-have's? Looking at the boards and websites I've seen assorted handheld cutting tools, sanders, band saws (what size?) and dremel tools mentioned universally so far, and a few table saws. Since I have no tools to speak of, this project also represents an opportunity to aquire a few of those nifty toys I sadly walked past in home depot for all these years (on my way to the gardening department). My current tool box consists of a hammer, assorted screwdrivers, a leatherman multi-tool, a cordless deremel, and a fancy multimeter. I never cease to be surprised how much you can accomplish with those tools and some ingenuity. Anyhow, part of my planning includes budgeting to outfit a shop with all the equipment I'm going to need. Any suggestions on what I need and what to steer clear of?

Well, who knows... Maybe the price will go down? <hopeful grin>

Just be sure the wires aren't backwards. "!REAG NHOJ ...REAG ...!reaG !nhoJ"

Something I'm looking into are those portable prefab toolsheds (I think one brand name is TuffShed), one of the larger ones. I plan on going out and looking at some at the tractor supply here in town this weekend, I hear they have better ones than home depot had. Being military forces me to consider the long term consequences of the build process, and the availability (or lack) of a garage or basement to work in should I move again. I'm good for a few years having just arrived at my current station (one of the reasons for wanting to build now), but knowing I'll have a place to work if I move is comforting. Since the household six has forbidden an airplane in the livingroom (I really tried), I'll have to go with an exterior workshop of some sort. Since they're relatively portable, good sized prefab shed would be ideal. A cozy workspace for a cozy airplane.

Hmm, Okay. I was wrong with my guesstimates on fuel burn. I should have mentioned that it was a hip-shot guess for two engines based on the numbers I saw in the video, thinking offhand that two engines = 1/2 the throttle setting on each to achieve the same power/thrust. Yeah, I know, I wasn't thinking it through. I'm no expert on turbines, but it seemed to me that the fuel burn spiked quickly toward the upper RPMs, about the time it passed through 160 horsepower. 14 GPH doesn't seem *too* extravagant to me, considering it hit 11 gph at 160 horses and the damn thing will run on just about any fuel you put in it. Yes, you might at first expect a decreased range with the higher burn rate but you can't really determine that until you figure out how fast "cruise" with this engine really is, right? I'm curious about how the thrust it generates compares with a conventional ICE of similar "horsepower." How would you determine the relevant fuel consumption of each engine needed to generate enough power to maintain 180 mph at a given altitude? I'm gonna keep a close eye on these.

Actually, when looking at the numbers on the video and the table listed elsewhere on the site, a rate of fuel burn in excess of 10 GPH only seemed to occur at the high end RPM range of the engine. Now granted, even at a slow cruise you'd still burn between 10 and 20 with two engines... but imagine the thrust you'd have available to play with. It's fun to imagine, but I wouldn't consider it seriously. At least, not on a cozy. Too complex, too heavy, too expensive. Just how fast could a Cozy go, at least theoretically? How fast is the airframe rated to?

Just how fast are you planning on going?? That's as wild as the guy with the 13B and ducted fan installation on his Long EZ... Just out of curiosity, where would you fit two?

I don't know if any of you have seen this or not... but I haven't seen it mentioned so I figured I'd toss it out. While the wife and I were looking into engines we came across this. http://www.atpcoinc.com/Pages/Requests.html Sounds like it's still in development. Nevertheless, the drool factor is off the chart.

You know, I was looking into the same thing last night and logged in here to ask the same question. I noticed the defensive tone also-- they (infinity) do sound rather defensive, which I find somewhat curious. After recieving the official go-ahead last month from the household six, I turned up my research efforts. We've started budgeting and laying out the wish lists. One of the items that came up were the retracts; whether or not we wanted them. I've been especially interested in the retract/fixed debate. Although the performance increase isn't very dramatic considering the performance envelope, and you won't have many (if any) opportunities to see your aircraft with the gear up, I can't deny that the Cozy with retracting gear simply looks cooler, and any performance gain is just that-- more performance from an already impressive plane. Did I mention it looks cooler? In case you haven't seen it yet, Mr. Phillip Johnson has perhaps the most telling arguments in favor of the retracts. Look him up at http://www.geocities.com/plmjohnson I'm not worried about the increased maintenance. Heck, I'm already going to build the thing from scratch, what's a little extra maintenance? My biggest concern is any loss of structural strength to the spars or the skin on the wings. What kind of effect would be caused by the additional turbulence around the deployed gear/wells? Arguments about damage to the aircraft during gear-up/gear-down landings off-field are irrelevant in my way of thinking. If I'm making an emergency landing or ditching the plane, the plane's toast. As long as I wake up the next morning, to heck with the plane. The question in this case is: Does the Cozy fuselage have the integrity to survive a belly landing? Considering that every completed Mark IV I know of and every owner I've spoken to is using the fixed gear option, the plane was designed that way, the designer is almost pleading with you not to use retracts, the retractable gear manufacturer is on the defensive, and the engineering questions that I've encountered, not to mention my wife's opinion on the complexity issue, I'll likely go with the fixed gear. I hope to speak with Mr. Puffer himself when I order the plans (this week if all goes well), and that will settle the issue. Then again, the retracts do look lots cooler. Check out the file if you don't believe me. Courtesy Miscrosoft Paint.exe P.S. Please note that I altered a photo of a Cozy to make it appear to have no gear. I realize there might be legal ramifications to this. If someone objects, I will not hesitate to remove the photo.

Looks like I'll need to speak to the wife about adding a new hard dollar value item into the budget. About 12K should do it...

Can you clarify this? I'm still looking at the regs, and haven't seen this yet. You're saying your aircraft certified engine becomes no longer aircraft certified once you (the owner) perform maintenance on it. Unless, of course, you're an A&P. That makes sense. Obviously, this would affect the value of the engine. Would this have any impact on the aircraft certificates, such as (but not limited to) airworthiness certificates? Also, could the engine be re-certified at a future date, and by whom? The manufacturer? By the way... Ever try to find info in the FAA documents when you're not sure what you're looking for? I think I have a permanent headache.

As soon as I saw this site I was reminded of numerous written comments by Nat himself about another recent design touting "Proven" technology, used in "other aircraft." The specs page makes frequent use of the word "should" as well. Apparently it hasn't flown. I'm just a newb, but the salesmanship sounds strikingly familiar. It does look cool though. Looks like someone merged the more appealing characteristics of an F117 with a B2. I wonder... Would ATC even see this thing coming? Shape has a lot to do with stealth, more than just materials. Having said that, I can just imagine Al-Qaeda getting their hands on a few of these.

Okay... NOW I have questions. Please bear with me. The more I'm learning here, the more unanswered questions I end up with. So let's say ten years from now I lose my mind and sell my Cozy, perhaps to buy a 310 or some such. I was reading the regs on who is authorized to perform maintenance on an experimental, and as I understand it, the builder of the aircraft, by virtue of being considered the manufacturer, is by default an authorized service provider. On the other hand, I would not be authorized to perform similar maintenance on the 310. Who then, other than another Cozy builder, would be able to perform maintenance on my Cozy? Doesn't a mechanic have to become certified for the aircraft he's performing maintenance on? And if so, how does he become certified if it's a homebuilt, other than building one of similar type himself?