Marc Zeitlin

I vaguely recall you pointing that out to me before. And which I have tried here. Eh. Closer to 10 - 15 seconds, by the time you're done with it, but yeah - it works, and I'll try to remember for next time... Thanks.

So you don't have the plans trim system - you've got something more like the LE/COZY/etc. trim systems. When you say that you need to trim for level flight, are you at the full range of trim FORCE, or is the actual aileron DEFLECTION near the full limit to keep the plane level? If the second, I assume that means you can turn VERY well to once side, and almost not at all to the other. Which is it? In any case, what many folks have done for testing purposes (or permanently, depending upon how lazy one is) is to attach a 1/32" - 1/16" thick AL tab via pop rivets to the trailing edge of the wing outboard where I previously mentioned. If you use baffling rivets, the large head on the top of the TE negates the need for any backing material, and the pulled head of the rivet will be on the AL. One could glass it on as well on the bottom of the TE, with a couple of plies of BID cloth over the TE area and rivets. Belt and suspenders. Start with a BIG tab as making something smaller is always easier than making something bigger. Rigging takes experimentation, and you may need a lot of changes to get it to fly straight. Seeing the plane would help a lot, as it's hard to get a full picture just by vague descriptions. Some folks, after determining size/shape of a trim tab have actually modified a portion of the TE of the wing outboard of the aileron to have more camber, effectively creating an integrated trim tab. Lots more work... And if you actually DO have a major roll issue, where you can roll easily in one direction and not much at all in the other, don't fly the plane until it's been at least partially addressed.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the Varieze wing attach scheme, but it's completely different than the Long-EZ/COZY/etc. attach scheme and the wing incidence angle is NOT adjustable by any means once the fabrication is complete.

Still can't easily do in-line editing in quoted responses - not fond of this forum software... Anyway, you don't say if you've got the long or short canard, so it's unclear whether 96.5 - 97" CG is WAY forward in the CG range, or just toward the forward limit. Won't affect the roll issue any, but it's a thing. You don't say what type of electric trim you have - the original bizarre trim for the VE was an electric trim tab on ONE aileron, run with an RC servo. Is that what you have? Do you have something else? Did the previous owner/builder fly the plane for 20 years with a severe roll asymmetry? If it used to fly straight, then I'd look VERY carefully at the wing/strake mounting and make sure that everything is exactly correct - there isn't much room to have things be wrong on a VE - if it's wrong, it probably won't go together, but it's something to look at. 15 lb. of weight asymmetry isn't much - was the canopy open when you did the W&B? That would account for much of the asymmetry. So would residual fuel in the tanks, if they weren't completely drained. But it certainly isn't enough to account for the heavy right wing - that's an aerodynamic asymmetry. You don't say whether the heavy right wing is constant with differing IAS's, or if it gets worse (or better) as you go faster or slower. The GENERIC answer to this question would be NO, you do not want to re-rig the ailerons to fix a heavy wing - you will lose aileron throw in one direction, and that's a bad idea. With the understanding that I'm woefully lacking in information here, the right answer would probably be to put a fixed trim tab outboard on the heavy wing - maybe 8" long, 1.5" in chord, 1 - 2 ft. inboard of the winglet, riveted to the TE and at maybe a 20 degree downward deflected angle. Once you fly with that, you can determine if it's too big, too small, needs more or less angle, or wha - you'll need to iterate. If only a small trim tab is necessary to bring the plane into trim, then maybe an integrated gurney flap could be used on the bottom of the right wing, just to be less obtrusive.

While there is very little evidence that there is a large difference, especially on updraft cooled engines, between plug gasket probes on the top and head probes on the bottom, the answer is yes - probes in the head (if there ARE places for them - some heads are not drilled/tapped) are better and will be more accurate, because you're actually measuring what you care about and what the POH / engine operating manual determines the limits are. No one ever lists limits for spark plug gasket probes, so who knows what the right answer is? Maybe you're reading high - maybe you're reading low. No way to know. I NEVER recommend plug gasket probes unless the heads aren't prepped for the internal probe. And I definitely recommend using probes with bayonet mounts - WAY easier to install and remove for service.

Actually, just go to: http://cozybuilders.org/ref_info/ and download it from there. Forgot I had it on the web pages.

If it hasn't been used in a long time, it may very well need a disassembly and cleaning. The instructions do NOT indicate how to do this, and Alex is no longer in business. So you're on your own. But it's not rocket science, and it'll go back together after disassembly. Also, the torque is settable - remove the electrical tape over the bottom of the motor, and turn the torque setting ring. I've got the instruction manual as a PDF I can send if you give me an email address.

The "ratcheting" sound you hear when the unit reaches the end of its travel is, in fact, the clutch slipping, because the motor _IS_ a cordless drill, with a torque setting. What do you think the unit is doing incorrectly, since what you describe is the correct operation of the system?

Interesting that you bring this up. I discussed this issue in some depth in my presentation on canard aerodynamics at the Columbia Fly-In a few weeks ago. You can see the presentation here: http://cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/index.htm under "Other Presentations", down near the bottom. I also discussed the issue on the COZY mailing list a while back in relation to a Long-EZ I've flown that has a very long and rounded (but not THAT long) nose as well as very small lower winglets, and it has substantially less directional stability at lower speeds, especially.

I don't remember exactly what the difference is between the LE and COZY MKIV nose gear strut, but it's pretty minor. But Jack's NG-6A's aren't different in the way they attach to the strut - they're different in their overall width and how they fit between The NG-30's, which is different between the LE and COZY MKIV. And as someone who's built one of each, you should know that :-).

Folks: I am assisting a customer in selling Aerocanard #1, built by Jeff Russell. For more information, see: Any questions, feel free to get in touch.

Geez, what a lot of work for no purpose whatsoever except to satisfy a bureaucracy. In any case, what Kent asked above, and the following comment: I'd just like to point out that AS SHOWN, the wing load distribution will be incorrect, as the moment contribution from the inward forces from the winglets is not included (at least, I don't see any force applied inward to the winglet). This doesn't mean that the test is useless - it all depends on what's being tested, and to what level. But the distribution of forces will not be correct. Jochen Fuglsang had to do the same testing on his COZY III, and he did, in fact, impart the correct winglet forces to the plane to ensure that the moments were correct.

Two things - first, you should ALWAYS get a Pre-Buy examination that YOU pay for when purchasing an airplane. Whomever did the CI on this plane (and since Nate built it and almost certainly has the RC for it, I'd bet a lot of $$$ that he signed it off) was working for Nate, if in fact it wasn't Nate. If you don't see a conflict of interest in using the CI as a Pre-Buy when it was signed off by the guy who's selling the plane (or who works for the guy who is selling the plane), well... And aside from that, as nice a plane as Nate has built here, it's overpriced, although I suppose if someone's willing to pay it, good for Nate (and for the rest of us, as it'll set a high bar for the rest of the planes). The $79K plane is also way overpriced, although it too is a very nice plane. All IMO.

So I have an exceptionally qualified CFII (and you should get an exceptionally qualified canard expert to do a Pre-Buy for you on the LE) in Rosamond, CA that I recommend all my clients to. The first question is, what's the definition of a "signoff"? If they require actual instruction, you can't do "instruction" in a Long-EZ because (unless it's been modified) it doesn't have full dual controls. My CFII does checkouts in his COZY MKIV. If they don't require "instruction", the LE might be adequate, but I/we still recommend doing the training in the COZY, as the right seat is functionally identical to a LE, but the instructor is next to you rather than isolated in the back seat. Safer all around. You know how to contact me if you want to get in touch with him (or me, for the PB).

Other than Perry Mick, who has (at last count, anyway) under 1000 hours on his plane in 25 years or so, please name some other members of the "canard aircraft with Mazda engines who swear by the conversion" camp.

Mr. Quinton Oliviero. Which is a wonderful name, BTW.

I went down and took a look at the plane with Bill O. and the owner. In my opinion, it is NOT safe to fly as is, and needs a LOT of work to make it safe to fly. It's extremely heavy, poorly built and a pig in a poke. I was hoping to be able to tell the current owner otherwise when I went to Chino to take a look (at my time and expense), but I couldn't in good faith say that anyone should fly the thing, even though Bill O. did once. He said (directly to me) that it was almost uncontrollable. The fact that Mr. Hanson signed off a CI on a plane that he himself had built, in my opinion, isn't worth (in the words of John Nance Garner) a bucket of warm piss. There are MANY safety issues with this plane that need addressing - I have a list... For QO, I wouldn't let Mr. Hanson look at any plane I was going to fly in, much less work on it.

Bill has been trying to get the plane down to me for a Condition Inspection for months now, but between his schedule and the weather, we haven't been able to arrange it. It's still in the plan, though, as the weather improves in the spring. If you're truly interested in the plane, you can work with Bill to be here when the CI is done, so you can learn about the plane (and Long-EZ's in general). At this point, you can buy a flying Long-EZ for about 1/2 of what it would cost you to build one. It won't be as nice or exactly what you want, but it'll be flying 3 - 7 years earlier. All depends on what's important to you, what you want, and what your mission is. And you can upgrade/modify it to BE what you want over time, while it's flying.

Can one of you send me her contact info? I may have an interested buyer...

I wish that were true and you would hope that "good workmanship" is self-evident, but that is not the case. I have seen aircraft built by folks that have built multiple canard aircraft that have been average to below average builds and I've seen stuff built by beginners that's phenomenal. I've also seen a lot (wait for it - about half) that are below average builds. Thankfully, even a 5th - 10th percentile quality aircraft will probably be safe, but... There's no way that someone just LOOKING at a few aircraft under construction will have a clue what they're looking at, much less be a judge of what's "good" or even "good enough". I see a LOT of crap out there, and a lot of stuff that looks good from 20 feet away, that when you get close and know what you're looking at, have a lot of issues. The way you ensure a quality project, if you're buying one, is to have it examined by someone with the knowledge to do so, and just because someone has built one before doesn't mean they're qualified. This from someone that does 30 CI's per year, maybe 5 Pre-Buys per year, and has seen over 100 different canards over the past 5 years. Pretty sure that there are fewer than 5 people out there that can say the same, if that.

There are only two reasons that anyone lists aircraft that are worth $35K - $50K for $75K or $117K. And those are that they're hallucinating, or that they've told their spouse that they're going to sell the plane but don't really want to. Because there is zero chance that either one of those planes (or a few of the COZY's that are for sale) will sell for anywhere near their asking price. This MIGHT be a $45K plane, but I'd have to see it to know.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but the policy you point to above specifically say, in Section II(d): "While sponsors may adopt more restrictive rules for use of hangars, the FAA will generally not consider items to interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar unless the items:" blah, blah, blah. So the FAA allows sponsors to be MORE restrictive, as long as you're not interfering with aeronautical use, with 5 "unless the items" definitions of interfering, none of which mention maintenance. I'm not arguing that they're not being assholes by prohibiting maintenance - I certainly believe they are - but it's not a slam dunk that you'd win any argument in court, given the statement that the sponsor can adopt MORE restrictive rules. I think an argument can be made that you're interfering with aeronautical use by prohibiting maintenance, but I also believe that an argument can be made that you're allowed to prohibit it. Don't know who wins that argument. Now, section 22 of the sponsor assurances document is stronger - paragraph (f) says: "It will not exercise or grant any right or privilege which operates to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own employees [including, but not limited to maintenance, repair, and fueling] that it may choose to perform." Which seems pretty clear, BUT, paragraph (i) gives them an out, by saying: "The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." So all the sponsor has to do is claim (wrongfully, but they can claim it) that the activity will prevent the airport from being safe. Uggghhh.

A few references: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2011/may/19/impossible-turn-practice-makes-possible indicates (without any supporting evidence) BG speed and a 45 degree bank. They don't say whether that's BG in a turn or S&L, but since 1G BG is all anyone ever reports, that's what I'll assume they mean. In my plane at the GW's I was at, BG is somewhere in the 80 - 85 KIAS region. This: http://pilatusowners.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/US-Navy-turnback-study-1982.pdf is an empirical study that tested success with your parameters - just above stall speed, with different bank angles - 30 degrees and 45 degrees seemed to work the best in these test cases. This: http://peter-ftp.co.uk/aviation/misc-euroga/2013-turnback.pdf is a theoretical analysis, but is backed up with empirical results from testing, and recommends a speed of 5% above the stall speed IN THE TURN. So we may be saying similar things here, due to the differences between stall speeds in the 45 degree bank turns and at 1G (a factor of about 1.2). My airplane stalls, in the configurations I was testing, at about 62 KIAS. So with a 45 degree bank, the stall speed would be 74.5 KIAS. Now add on the 5% margin recommended in the last reference, and we're at 78 KIAS - almost exactly the 80 KIAS I noted was the best case for us. There's no way MY plane could do a 65 KIAS indicated turn at 45 degrees of bank - I'd be below my indicated stall speed and there's obviously be no margin on top of the stall speed. If we assume that (as is always the case) between min sink speed and stall, the descent rate increases, then it's better to be somewhat above stall, which the 80 KIAS gives me, per the last reference's recommendations. I think that the canard capability to get right up to stall speed makes this maneuver a lot safer than in a conventional plane, where a 45 degree bank at 5% over stall speed is pretty much begging for a stall/spin accident.

I've practiced this in my plane as well. We did a Vx climbout until at 100 ft., then Vy climbout. At 400 ft. AGL, we chopped the throttle, and then waited 4 seconds (to simulate the "WTF JUST HAPPENED" reaction time of the average human being before the training kicks in). At that point, I started a turnback, set the airspeed to BEST GLIDE (NOT just above stall - BG is about 80 KIAS, with a 62 KIAS stall speed), and as Kent says, about a 45 degree bank (which IS optimal). It's certainly exciting - making 45 degree turns when 200 ft. AGL and offset a few hundred feet from the runway is not usual, to say the least. But in a COZY MKIV, it works. I think Kent could do it at 300 ft AGL because he didn't wait 4 seconds - if you do wait, I don't think you're making it back. I would tend to agree that 500 ft. AGL might be the lowest I'd try it in a real surprise situation, but it would also depend on what's around, CG, GW, etc. I was very surprised, the first time I tried this, at how close to not making it we weren't - it really wasn't a squeaker - we probably touched down a few hundred ft. from the threshold. We tried a few different bank angles and a few different speeds. The best performance was always at best glide (L/D) speed, and with about a 45 degree bank.

OT here, but why do you think that installing HC pistons is a major change? I wouldn't consider them that, as an A&P. Per 21.93, the only part of the definition that this MIGHT apply to is the "operational characteristics", but I'd argue that "OC's" mean the operating envelope of the aircraft, and installing HC pistons does not change the stall speed or Vne, or the max. G load, or..... and so wouldn't be a major change. Now, it might be a good idea to get new OL's, just so that major changes can be made (many VE's have OL's that prohibit major changes without a new AC, so eventually, you might have to do this), but I wouldn't argue that more HP from the same engine is a major change. Obviously, YMMV.