Jump to content

Marc Zeitlin

Verified Members
  • Content Count

    1,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Marc Zeitlin last won the day on October 12 2021

Marc Zeitlin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

2 Followers

About Marc Zeitlin

  • Rank
    Flying Cozy MKIV N83MZ
  • Birthday 08/06/1957

Flying Information

  • Flying Status
    Flying - 1600 hrs.
  • Registration Number
    N83MZ
  • Airport Base
    KTSP

Personal Information

  • Real Name (Public)
    Marc J. Zeitlin
  • Location (Public)
    Tehachapi, CA 93561
  • Occupation
    Principal - Burnside Aerospace
  • Bio
    www.mdzeitlin.com/Marc/bio.html

Project/Build Information

  • Plane
    Cozy Mark IV
  • Plane (Other/Details)
    COZY MKIV
  • Plans Number
    386

Contact Methods

  • City
    Tehachapi
  • State/Province
    CA
  • Country
    United States
  • Email (Visible)
    marc_zeitlin@alum.mit.edu
  • Phone Number
    978-502-5251
  • Website URL
    http://www.cozybuilders.org/

Recent Profile Visitors

3,340 profile views
  1. While I have seen decent implementations of tie downs embedded in the lower winglet, this was obviously not one of those. The wing attach bolt tiedowns (colloquially known as "DuBois style", after the first implementer), are the most robust of all the tiedown schemes. They attach to the most structurally robust point in the whole airplane - the point where the wings attach to the strake. They do not compromise the wing spar or winglet attach area, as the holes through the spar near the tip do (and that's from the LE (and maybe VE) plans - Nat did not invent it) and they don't compromise the integrity of the Trailing Edge in high winds, as the rope over the whole wing/winglet area do. They don't put bending point loads on the wing, as a wingtip tie-down does. They have no extra drag or aerodynamic affect, and are aesthetically invisible. And with an airplane that can rock side to side, the closer to the fuselage the tiedown is, the lower the force on the ground attachment will be. All in all, the best solution. IMNSHO, of course.
  2. Eric: Drop me an email - you can pop over to Tehachapi sometime and I can give you a ride.
  3. If I'm completely over my Covid, I'll be there (and presenting on Saturday). Bring Harriet - Deanie will be there, if I am.
  4. Just curious - who's plane did you get, and who did your Pre-Buy examination? Are you planning on coming to Columbia (O22) on June 3 - 5? See: http://www.canardswest.org/
  5. Since the oil cooler is always (on Lycomings) mounted to the firewall, spar, cowl, or some other fixed component and not on the engine, how does this mounting scheme change the amount of flex on the flex hoses that connect the cooler to the engine? And why would flex on a flex hose be a problem?
  6. May or may not be legal for night flight (if you just want them for recognition, you can use whatever you want), and you still need to run power out to the wingtips, which is the difficult part - whatever light is out there still needs power.
  7. There are no plans for VE wingtip lighting installation. I've installed wingtip lighting in a couple of VE's that didn't have conduits for wiring - did something similar to what Kent indicated. You have to be VERY careful not to puncture the top and/or bottom skins during the drilling operation, and if there are winglet antennae, you need to be very careful not to destroy the antenna coax. It can be done, but you have to know exactly what you're doing because without a spar near the tip, the wing skins are the only structure and you can damage them easily. With respect to ADS-B, if your transponder is relatively new and working well, then this: https://uavionix.com/products/echo-uat/ with the SkyFYX GPS antenna is the best choice. I've installed a bunch of them in canards. If, however, you have an ancient, tube-type transponder that could fall over dead any second, and you're NOT going to update your whole panel with an EFIS system but need a standalone transponder, this: https://stratusbyappareo.com/products/stratus-transponders/ is the most cost effective solution.
  8. What engine do you have? What propeller do you think you're considering? What problem do you think you're trying to solve?
  9. Extremely optimistic. With no engine, no panel, no electrical system, basically, it's just an airframe. And with the need for refinishing, at least on a large part of it, I'd say closer to 800 - 1200 hours before it flies again. WAY less than building from scratch, certainly, but boy is that nose ugly. You've got 200 hours in just the electrical system/IP, plus another 60 - 80 hours in just the baffling on the engine, not to mention all the other engine installation time. Now, double that for a first time builder that doesn't know what they're doing yet... And to beat a dead horse, I wouldn't go near it, for $5K or $0K, without a qualified Pre-Buy examination.
  10. There's no reason to concern yourself with "pitch", in this case, particularly when what the EFIS displays is the relationship to the horizon, not the AOA. The object in an approach is to be on a 3 degree (approximately) glideslope at a reasonable IAS. For our planes, that IAS is about 85 - 90 KIAS, and with power pulled to idle, nose gear extended, LB retracted, rudders in trail, and no wind, you'll be just about there. What's the pitch angle? Who cares? Just set your EFIS pitch adjustment so that with those conditions, the pip is on the horizon. See my commentary above on why you're not going to be able to create any sort of useful three dimensional map that'll give you any more utility than this simple rule of thumb. The problem is that it's non-linear in all axes...
  11. It's amazing how much prices have risen. An O-235 LE, with a mid time engine, a 437 year old panel with an obsolete EFIS, GU canard and a lot of TLC needed, would have been $20K - $25K not three years ago. But you're right - this will probably go for low to mid 40's.
  12. E-AB aircraft are not for everyone. If you just want to get in a plane and fly, and have someone else worry about maintenance, etc., then a TC'd plane is far more appropriate. Particularly with plans built aircraft, EVERY PLANE IS DIFFERENT, so you need to be willing to spend a lot of time learning about the details and idiosyncrasies of YOUR plane. Also expect (given how much people fly, or don't, per year - maybe 30 - 50 hours for most E-AB owners) to spend an hour on maintenance for every hour in the air. Fly more and the ratio goes down. But it's NOT a car. The AMT handbook is decent, as is AC43.13-1B, upon which the AMT handbook is based. I wouldn't bother with the composites book - just read the COZY plans (or Long-EZ, or Open-EZ - available for free online). It'll have everything you need to know about how these planes are built.
  13. I charge $1,250 for a canard CI. You can get them for less, but you get what you pay for. Others have pointed you to the rules for E-AB aircraft - you (or anyone on the face of the earth, including your grandmother's dog) can do anything you want to the airplane, whether you (or they) built it or not. The ONLY thing you need an A&P (or the Repairmans Certificate holder) for is to sign off the Condition Inspection. Cost of ownership for an equivalent performance aircraft will be a lot lower for an E-AB, since the purchase price and carrying costs will be a lot lower. Or for equivalent $$$, you get far more performance. Barnstomers will usually have more listings than TAP or Controller, but it's good to look everywhere. COZY MKIV's (good ones) are few and far between - there's one on the market now with a bunch of folks chasing it. There are a number of project planes - some I would touch, others I wouldn't go near.
  14. a) I have no idea what you're trying to say with your second sentence - buying a canard aircraft, even now when prices have risen, is hardly more expensive than building one - sometimes still less. What your reference to 21.191 means in the context of buying a flying canard aircraft is unclear - all the rules for experimentals still apply - the only difference between an experimental amateur built aircraft that you bought and one that you built is that you need to hire an A&P (or the person with the Repairmans Certificate) to perform the yearly Condition Inspection). Other than that, you (or anyone else you choose) can do any repairs or modifications to the plane. b) Your statement about "truly do not know what you are buying" is completely incorrect. Knowledgeable examiners can determine the state of a composite aircraft to essentially the same extent as with metal aircraft. On RV's, there are numerous critical structural areas that are closed out, invisible, and unexaminable. No different than the internal structure of a composite aircraft. If you're interested in COZYs, go sit in one and get a flight in one. Then either build one or purchase one - there are numerous project planes available that would give you substantial building experience as well as a quicker path to flight. Turnkey COZY MKIV's are few and far between.
  15. So I think that you and Kent are talking about two different things. Your original question is ambiguous. Are you asking about AOA? Are you asking about longeron angle with respect to the horizon? Something else? The relationship between any of those things and descent speed/angle will be completely dependent upon power settings as well as drag devices being used and IAS. With power at idle, the AOA vs. descent rate will NOT be a linear function, as the AOA is a function of V^2 and on either side of the minimum sink rate speed, the sink rate will be higher. The fact that your Attitude Indicator is demarcated in degrees shows your angle with respect to the horizon, which is NOT AOA. Slow way down to barely above stall speed, and your deck angle will be very high, and your descent rate will be very high. Now push the nose over and go faster than minimum sink speed and get to the same decent rate that you saw just above stall speed - your deck angle will be a LOT lower, but your decent rate will be the same. I'd argue that your question is not useful - the relationship between deck angle and descent rate is not something that means anything. What is it you're trying to determine? If you're trying to determine how to pitch for a constant descent rate in an approach at idle throttle, I've set my zero on the EFIS horizon for 90 KIAS with the throttle at idle - this is a good speed for our planes on an instrument approach, as it allows for easy timing calculations, while giving margin on either side to slow down or speed up as required by ATC or wind, and allows for lowering the descent rate by slowing to best L/D or min sink speed as required.

The Canard Zone

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information