Marc Zeitlin

29 minutes ago, TRUEMAN said:

I will build first in CAD regardless, that's just how things are done in my world, I cant imagine it will take significant time compared to a 3K hour project

You know, you're not the first person in 30 years to think of putting a Long-EZ or COZY MKIV into 3D CAD - I was one of them, in 1995. But everyone who tries - who's not just in it for the fun of building a 3D model but thinks that they're going to obtain some advantage by having a 3D model - quickly comes to the realization that it's a total waste of time, and ADDS work to the build, rather than making it go faster. But hey - CAD away, and let us know if you come to a different conclusion from everyone else.

31 minutes ago, TRUEMAN said:

Does anyone know of an automotive gas, well documented build with proof of success? Hopefully some Rotax examples?

There have been one or two Rotax Long-EZs, but all but the largest turbo'd version (the 915iS at 141 HP) are a bit anemic for a Long-EZ, and totally inadequate for a COZY MKIV. And given that Rotax's cost as much as Lycomings, I don't know why you'd want one. If all you want is auto gas compatibility, use a Lycoming with 8.5:1 or lower compression cylinders - STC's are available (not that you need one, but it indicates that it's been tested and approved). Then find a sealant for the inside of the strake tanks (polysulfides are preferred) and use that to seal the tanks. Numerous folks use mogas in their COZYs and Long-EZs. If you can find mogas without ethanol, you don't need the fancy sealant.

Put an SDS EFII/EI system on a Lycoming and the BSFC is as good as any available gas engine, and it's almost FADEC.

1 hour ago, Jon Matcho said:

Bill Allen is the pioneer with working to fit the Deltahawk to a Long-EZ.

Bill's LE has a Wilksch Diesel - NOT a Deltahawk. It's been years, and still not successfully operational.

http://www.longezediesel.com/

Note that the Wilksch webpage does not even indicate engines for sale, after 26 years of development:

http://www.wilksch.aero/aboutus

10 hours ago, macleodm3 said:

there is 1 excellent Subaru Cozy that flies alot too...

To whose Subaru powered COZY are you referring? I know of three - Al Wick (165 HP version - hasn't flown in 7 years or more, never went cross country, maybe had a couple hundred hours on it [agreed trouble free, but hardly "flies a lot"]), Keith Spreuer (220 HP version - flew a LOT, but had MANY failures, and has swapped it out for a Lycoming) and Phillip Johnson (also a 220 HP version - unless something has changed recently, doesn't fly much and doesn't have a lot of time on it).

Non-Lycoming powered canard aircraft have been few and far between, with only a couple that could be considered successful. Perry Mick's Mazda could be considered successful, and Gary/Char Spencer's direct drive V8 could be considered successful, both within narrow definitions of the word "successful".

You want to tinker? Use an auto conversion. You want to fly? Use a Lycoming.

And Deltahawk has bee saying they're just about ready to fly since 1995. So there's that. You NEVER want to be an early adopter of an auto conversion engine - the E-AB world is littered with people that have been duped and lost a lot of time and $$$ chasing that chimera.

2 hours ago, John Caulkins said:

... My original plan was to identify where the extra "weight" was located and reduce it. ... I have come to see the folly of my dreams....

Welcome, John. I don't want to pick on you (because I've seen many cases where someone purchased an airplane thinking they would be able to mold it into what they wanted and weren't able to do so), but this is where I'll throw in my plug for a reputable Pre-Buy examination from one of a number of canard experts who have seen, worked on and inspected many canard aircraft - not just the one they built. It can save you (the generic you) a lot of heartache down the road.

Particularly with weight - it's almost impossible to take weight out of a plane unless there's something very obvious, like big metal accessories that aren't required, or that can be substantially reduced in size.

2 hours ago, John Caulkins said:

... I am an A&P (retired) and determined to fly my own Long-EZ....someday....

And you can. Even a heavy Long-EZ may be a fine plane, as long as you don't want to carry another person and much fuel at the same time. Depending upon engine, many Long-EZ's use 1600 lb as the MGW, rather than the book value of 1325 lb. This reduces the size of the V-N diagram and maximum "G" load (as well as maximum landing vertical velocity), but hardly makes the plane a basket case or unusable. Depending upon your engine and empty weight, this might still be a perfectly useful plane for 90% of your missions.

2 hours ago, John Caulkins said:

... and accept their written guidance as gospel....

Yeah, well, all I can say to that is that even the Pope is only infallible in a very specific set of circumstances. No one's written (or oral) guidance should be accepted as divine truth, least of all mine. Are some folks right most of the time? Sure. But verification and validation, or at least asking for explanations of WHY someone holds the position they do, is necessary.

Let's figure out how to make your plane as usable as possible.

4 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

Pictures please!

Here are a couple. This is a VERY simple diffuser - not 7 degree angles, and not very wide. It's got cutouts for hoses, throttle cable, and air filter, and yet, up to 13% more pressure at the oil cooler - never measured the pressure across the cylinders (as my CHT's were always fine).

1 hour ago, Kent Ashton said:

Lots of folks think a diffuser works on a canard.  I saw this one today being discussed on FB (pic 1).   The theory is that a diffuser will expand and slow the incoming airflow in an organized way and increased the pressure in the plenum under the engine.  I am skeptical.

I won't comment on the shown diffuser, but I will say that when I added a NACA diffuser, similar to that shown, to my cowl, I increased the pressure drop accross my oil cooler by anywhere from 5% to 13%, depending upon IAS.

4 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

Personally, I wouldn't bother with fireseal covering on fuel injection lines.  If there is a fuel leak, what's the ignition source?  The engine is not hot enough.  I suspect the fuel would evaporate as fast as it leaked out.

On an updraft cooled engine, if you put the distribution block and the FI lines on the top, they tend to get hot and cause vapor lock and very hard starting, as well as poor running when hot at low RPM/fuel flow. I've had customers have noticeably better engine running after installing insulation on the FI lines when they're on top of the engine. If you install the DB and FI lines on the bottom, as is recommended for updraft cooling, those issues don't exist (at least any more than they ever do on mechanical FI lycomings).

2 hours ago, TDubs74 said:

Sorry Marc.  I'm bored.  Lol.  I mentioned Last-A-Foam 10 replies ago.  Where the heck were you then?!  Lol

I figured that since you knew that COZY's were using it, and mentioned that, that the solution was clear. I didn't think it was necessary to point out that if 800 COZY's had been built with something, it was probably OK to use.

1 hour ago, TDubs74 said:

At first i was against the idea of the plywood due to added weight, but I am seriously reconsidering that thought.  I think the white foam they were referring to was Clark foam??  If it was, I don't think that's around anymore either.  Don't quote me on that though.

You guys are wasting an awful lot of time and effort on this. Just use P/N 01-14400 Last-A-Foam from ACS for the bulkheads in question (IP and a couple others) and call it a day. Cheaper and available without any special ordering.

14 hours ago, TDubs74 said:

What is your stance on the the West 105/209 Marc?  Strong enough or not recommended?  

Any of the approved epoxies are by definition "strong enough" and "recommended". I do not know anyone who USED the 105/209 combination to build a plane, but it is an approved combination. Personally, I'd use the MGS or Pro-Set (and have used them both on projects), with the EZ10-87 for anything that touches fuel. But they all work.

3 hours ago, A Bruce Hughes said:

THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS OF WEST EPOXY so don't mistake statements that someone thinks

"West" is structural; The 105 epoxy IS NOT.

This is an incorrect interpretation of reality. "WEST Systems" is a brand name. The 105 is the resin, and 205 / 206 / 207 / 209 are the hardeners. Only the 209 hardener, in concert with the 105 resin, is approved for structural layups - the 205/206 hardeners are great for micro/finishing.

3 hours ago, TDubs74 said:

How would you rate the coziness of the MkIV to that of a Cessna 172.  I know the seating position is different, and the area under the panel is different, but would you say it's like being in a 172, or smaller even?  Curious minds want to know.

Smaller and infinitely more comfortable. I sit in a C-172 and after 2 hours, I'm miserable and my butt hurts. After 5 hours in a COZY MKIV, I'm fine.

55 minutes ago, Laser3Lc said:

It is a link to the presentation? 

Folks:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8jqxgwby1xgtkqy/AAAvID0wdnuWzRWPwt-IwAKna?dl=0

13 hours ago, Evan West said:

Being a propeller engineer I plan to get a constant speed prop put on the thing, curious if anyone else has a CS prop currently?

There are a few COZY's, Berkuts and other canards flying with CS props. I'd guess less than 1% of the total. Those that have them generally say that they help with takeoff/climb, particularly with O-540 powered aircraft, but either hurt or do nothing on the top end.

I always recommend NOT using CS props, due to the cost, weight, maintenance issues, etc. unless you have a VERY particular set of circumstances that requires it. Which fewer than 1% of folks do.

13 hours ago, Evan West said:

1) Why is the rear seat weight limit in the Cozy-IV 300lbs? Is this arbitrary like the "300lb front seat limit"? I have several pilot friends and we all weigh ~180lbs and id like to put two 180lb people in the back for short breakfast runs (ik its cozy back there lol) 

Nat invented weight limits to protect people from being stupid(er than they already are). There is no 400 lb. front seat weight limit, or 300 lb. rear seat weight limit that's determined by structural limitations. If the people can fit (and THAT'S the limiting factor almost all the time) AND you're within the MGW and CG limits, you're good to go.

13 hours ago, Evan West said:

2) What is the max takeoff weight? I think ive seen 2050lbs quoted most often but the CG calculator sheet I found (from cozybuilders.org)  has 2175lbs as the max??

MGW for any E-AB aircraft is whatever the manufacturer (you) say it is. In Phase I, you're required to test to whatever limit you set. If you set your limit higher than the designer specified, you better understand what limitations that puts on takeoff performance, "G" loading, and landing vertical velocities (amongst many other things).

13 hours ago, Evan West said:

3) I see lots of talk about nose extensions on the Cozy....Why? 

On Long-EZ's, people extend the nose a bit to fit a battery for CG reasons when they install an O-320 instead of an O-235. They extend the nose a lot when they don't have a clue what they're doing and think that they're making the airplane look better. In a COZY MKIV, there's exactly zero reason to extend the nose, although a few folks have done it (again, for aesthetics).

13 hours ago, Evan West said:

4) Price estimate to build the airframe only? My best guess is 18k-20k?

Eh. Closer to $30K, at this point, if not more, given shipping costs. Maybe if you're a great scrounge and buy in bulk you could do it for under $30K. Plan on $30K - $40K by the time you get through with it, and if you do better, congratulate yourself.

On 7/19/2020 at 6:11 PM, macleodm3 said:

It takes 4000 hours to build a Cozy...

2990 from start to first flight for me. Nat said 2500 hours - most of the folks I talk to say 3K - 3500, give or take. 4K would be conservative unless you're making a bunch of non-documented mods, IMO. There are a few folks that have done it in less that 2K hours, but I think they used a bunch of prefab parts that others made for them.

8 minutes ago, Royal said:

How are they Structural?

They're not. But there are 5 lb. cowls, and there are 20 lb. cowls, even with cloth. I don't even want to guess what they'd weigh out of chopped rovings. No one makes cowls from anything but cloth, and some use carbon and fiberglass to minimize weight. It's an airplane, not a Corvette body.

43 minutes ago, Royal said:

Do the cowls need to be weave?

Yes.

43 minutes ago, Royal said:

or can they be chopped fiberglass?

No. Unless you don't give a crap how heavy your cowls are.

1 hour ago, 2High2Fast said:

I know the back-seater still won’t see directly in front, but they won’t be staring at that bulkhead/headrest, and I think that’s an improvement.

Hopefully, the pilot still has a head, though, and the back seater can't see through that. The lack of headrest will help forward visibility a bit for the rear seater, but in tandem planes, rear seat visibility forward isn't great. Every other direction is great, though.

1 hour ago, 2High2Fast said:

it does come with another set of wheel pants. The ones installed looked sound, though. 

Yeah, I can see the pants on the plane, but they're the old football style - Tim's goal was to put the newer pressure recovery style wheel pants on the plane and pick up a few kts. I've got them sitting in my hangar...

1 hour ago, 2High2Fast said:

So the rub is, how do I get fresh eyes on it in situ? 

Either convince Tim to bring the plane to KTSP for a Pre-Buy, or pay for me (or someone else competent) to go to Phoenix to spend a day examining the plane. See my website (in the signature) for my services. There are a couple of other folks I can recommend for PB's as well.

2 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

the 2-part canopy: forward visibility is much improved, but the rollover protection from the triangle-shaped piece is lost. Any thoughts on what the structure remaining would provide (some, none, lots?) I’m not certain what it’s made of (just composite?)

That canopy will have exactly the same forward visibility as the standard one part canopy. It will make it harder to get in and out of the plane (which is bad), and will have less "bowing" with temperature changes (which is good).

There is zero rollover protection from the headrest (it's a headrest, not a roll bar), so nothing is lost other than a headrest. _IF_ the existing canopy hoop was constructed well, possibly per Mike Melvill's instructions on installing a rollover hoop into the canopy, it will be better than nothing, and possibly better than the original headrest.

2 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

Plexi condition: rear canopy has a little haziness and strake windows are quite scratched up. How hard is it to replace molded-in custom plexi pieces? Didn’t look simple to me, but I don’t know composite construction.

It's a PITA, but with composite aircraft, everything is doable. A far more reasonable solution would just be to polish them, using something like one of these:

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/categories/building_materials/bm/menus/cs/windshieldrestoration.html

2 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

compressions: some in upper 60s. Broker says due to sitting and not flying much since overhaul (150 hrs in 9yrs, if memory serves). Says they should come up just fine after running an hour or two at high power, and agreed to retest after that’s done. Seem reasonable?

No. Compressions are almost meaningless - upper 60's are fine, 70's are fine, 45 is fine, _IF_ the engine is making rated power, not using oil, and not making metal. Far more important is a borescoping. I suggest reading Mike Busch on compression testing. I've seen engines read 30, then 77 after a 10 minute run (and need a rebuild), and others that read 45 measured hot after a couple of flights and was perfectly fine for hundreds of hours afterwards. Compressions are a HINT that MAYBE something's going on, or not, but they're hardly the last word. People make WAY too much of compression checks.

This plane has flown an average of 11 hours/year SMOH. That's almost always a bad sign for engines - just enough time to let the moisture build up, the corrosion start, and the little bit of running to beat the crap out of it. BUT, if it's lived the whole time in the desert, then the chance of corrosion is pretty low. Pulling a jug would tell, BUT (again, per Mike Busch) has its own risks and costs associated with it. Since it's a rarely used plane, I'd probably want a local A&P who's NEVER SEEN THE PLANE BEFORE to CAREFULLY pull a jug and borescope the cams and lifters.

What you ACTUALLY need is a real Pre-Buy examination along with the engine check - none of that will be cheap. This MIGHT be a decent, albeit slightly overpriced plane given the panel, or it might be a $20K - $25K plane that needs a new engine.

Strangely enough, I was scheduled to install wheel pants on that plane here in KTSP until weather and COVID got in the way - not sure what the plan is now.

2 hours ago, 2High2Fast said:

one drain has bubbling paint around it to the diameter of a quarter, or so. The other has had the paint sanded off a similar footprint. Assuming there’s a slight weep at the drain, is that a big concern in terms of the composite material, over time?

Nope. All easily fixable in an afternoon, even if there is a slight fuel leak around the drains.

3 hours ago, Kent Ashton said:

It appears you would file Aircraft Type ZZZZ.

Well, actually, if you go to the second link and search for "Rotorway", there are five approved designators depending upon which Rotorway model it is - no need for the "ZZZZ".

But you're correct that ATC doesn't give a crap about what the FAA's database says the plane is, as long as you call it the right thing when you talk to them.

Now, being somewhat obsessive, _I'd_ want to correct the wrong information in the database, and I'd ask the current owner to do so before I bought it - they could contact their local FSDO to get instructions on how to change the incorrect information (and there's no "major change" involved - you're only changing data in the database - you're not actually changing the aircraft). If the owner doesn't want to, since the helicopter's been flying just fine for 15 years with incorrect info in the database (which could be an issue for the insurance company, since THAT's the info they use to determine how much they're going to charge you), you can always make the corrections yourself after you buy the thing. The FAA isn't going to argue with you about it - you just have to fill in and submit the right forms.

2 hours ago, Bin Huang said:

Yes, I prefer FADEC engine, cause they are more fuel efficient and easy to use.

Easier to "use", yes. Please provide evidence of FADEC piston engines being more fuel efficient than a manually adjusted fuel injection engine. Thanks.

15 hours ago, Aeolus said:

I am curious to know if it is legal or OK to build as many of these unsupported, By the original manufacturer, aircraft as you want.

For aircraft plans sold by companies no longer in business and for which no copyright owner can be found (or who has given up the rights to the copyright), have at it. For the COZY MKIV, owned and sold by ACS, you're restricted to the agreement you sign with them.

15 hours ago, Aeolus said:

Al at Aerocanard is the only person I can find that offers a cozy in kit form, but I know he has permission.

Al neither has nor needs permission, since he's not selling COZY MKIV plans, but only parts. Only the plans are copyrighted - nothing in any of these planes is patented.

15 hours ago, Aeolus said:

Also I did not see anything about the fuel leak issue the cozy girls mention on their you tube video.

Give me a clue what "fuel leak issue" you're talking about.

15 hours ago, Aeolus said:

Do you think racing fuel cells instead of the tanks in the manual would be safer and better? Has anyone installed fuel cells?

No and no. MAYBE using some fuel cell foam in the tanks might be useful, but given the relative paucity of evidence of fuel tank fires (the few canard aircraft fires have been engine compartment fires, not tank fires in the air or on the ground, and there have been no "explosions") there's no evident issue with the construction of these aircraft's fuel tanks.

15 hours ago, Aeolus said:

I can't seem to find any info on this except one picture of what I think is a version of the long ez.

Posting a reference to what you're talking about will help others respond in a useful manner, rather than having to guess what you're talking about.

12 hours ago, Aeolus said:

Also, any advice on building, tips, tricks, videos I should  look at, or anything please let me know.

Kent buried the lede :-). If you're building a COZY MKIV, you should join the COZY mailing list at:

http://cozybuilders.org/mail_list/

read through the whole

http://cozybuilders.org/

website, as well as all the links that Kent pointed you to, particularly Wayne Hicks'.

Then read through all the presentations at:

http://cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/index.htm

many of which will be repetitive, but there's a LOT of what you asked there.

Plan on changing as little as possible, within reason, unless you're interested in having your kids be fully grown before you fly it :-).

9 hours ago, Papa November said:

Thanks Kent. I had a closer look today, and found out that the crack is making its way on the other side, to the lightening hole, but has not made it all the way through. I hope I can fly it until next winter, when a long stop at the pit will be needed.

Were you to bring that plane to me for a Condition Inspection and we found that crack in the bracket, there is no way I would sign off the CI, which says that the aircraft is "In a Condition for Safe Flight". Were I to see that crack on a Pre-Buy examination, I'd tell the buyer not to purchase the plane until it was fixed, or ensure that the plane was trucked to a place where it could be fixed. I'd tell the seller not to fly the plane until it was fixed - maybe ONE flight to the place of repair, but that's it.

Landing gear collapse, which is what a failure of that bracket could lead to (however unlikely it may be, and given the crack, it's not ALL that unlikely) can be a catastrophic event. Land hard, hit a small pothole, etc...