Marc Zeitlin

What Turboprop? There's no mention in the ad?

Here's what the current owner told me: "He said the builder acquired the wing spar and fuselage already complete by someone who started the project. The builder then told him that he used the vinylester throughout the rest of the project." I'd say that's a pretty good indication that vinylester resin was, in fact, used. Given what Gary Hunter says about Vinylester curing in thin layers (using standard epoxy techniques) quoted by Kent in post #146 above, I would argue that this plane is a candidate for a chainsaw and that it's good for parts only (where parts is anything OTHER than the structure). It MAY be worth buying, given that, considering the asking price. I certainly wouldn't fly in it. I do not, for the life of me, understand why people do things like this... 5 - 10 years of work for nothing, to save what - $300?

For those of you not on the COZY or Canard Aviators mailing lists: Tim Fisher has posted the dates for the Canards West Fly-In at Columbia Airport (O22) - it will be June 1st through June 3rd. See: http://www.canardswest.org/ for more information. To contact Tim about the event or to volunteer your services in some way (driving folks to and from the campground or into town; presenting on Saturday, etc.) he's available at: 209-996-9919 t.fisher13@comcast.net for questions/comments. Hope to see you all there!

No. Sure. Happens all the time. Especially now that many EZ's are getting on in years. Yes - a few have done so. You can raise the bottom of the IP a bit to ease getting large feet forward. Obviously, that will restrict how much crap you can throw at the panel, but one of my customers has raised the bottom a couple of inches and still has a pretty packed panel. POSSIBLE, but not recommended. There are a few folks that fly off of grass, but it has to be short grass on a long field, with a rearward CG and large main tires with high wheelpants. I have only ever met one person that didn't think that flying an EZ type aircraft was the best experience they've had in airplanes with respect to feeling like you're part of the plane. The feedback is not different - just better. It's light on the controls without being twitchy. I have one customer with a COZY MKIV who's an F-16 and F-35 test pilot who says that the COZY MKIV is his 2nd favorite plane after the F-16. So there's that. Sure, but you don't want to. Unless you're flying off of very short fields, the cost and weight penalties are severe. All it gets you is shorter takeoff rolls and higher climb rates - you generally get nothing, or give up a bit, on the top end.

Thanks for the publicity, but I'd appreciate it if rather than taking a copy of the copyrighted pics (or text), next time please just post a link to the page or specific picture. Thanks.

IIRC, my wing skin layups were approximately 11 hours, start to finish. All of them. Breath the vapors from ANY of the epoxy systems long enough and you can have a systemic allergic reaction. For all long layups (and to be careful, short ones as well) a carbon filter respirator has long been the recommended protection.

A number of LE's have been built with full dual controls (including rudders, but not brakes, which are not legally considered "flight controls") in the rear seat. This makes the plane legal for instruction and Flight Reviews.

I'm unfamiliar with that concept - "good side?"

http://www.cozybuilders.org - not ".com"

Contact me directly via email - I can put you in touch with a few folks.

Ken has given you some good info to look into. I'll be more blunt. You do not want to buy this airplane. There is no history, the legal records are unclear, the engine has 50 hours on it since some sort of work that is NOT an overhaul or rebuild in a seven year period, it's in a high corrosion environment with no indication of what protection was performed on the wing attach fittings (which are completely uninspectable), etc., etc. I wouldn't take this plane if it were free, unless I was looking for a large project and was willing to learn how to replace the wing attach fittings and actually rebuild the engine. If you want a Long-EZ, get a Long-EZ - there are a lot of them for sale, and some of them are even good ones. GET A GOOD PRE-BUY EXAMINATION from a qualified examiner prior to purchasing any canard aircraft. I do them and I can recommend others who do them as well. Buy this Varieze and expect to be kicking yourself soon thereafter.

A Q-200 is not appropriate as a training aircraft unless it's a Tri-Q 200. But even then... Between the higher performance and the crappy ground handling (of the tailwheel version), that's not where you want to start. None of the canards are really good primary trainers due to the higher performance and landing speeds. Possible? Sure. Optimal? No. Learn in something slower and then work your way into higher performance aircraft. My $0.02.

Yes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence It's not like Airbus's engineers are idiots. If you truly believe that you can magically provide three times (or hey - lets be conservative, twice) the thrust with the same motor in the same size ducted fan, well, then, physics has been revolutionized. The only way to get more thrust is to enlarge the rotor - use a 10 ft. diameter propeller and you'll get a lot more thrust. I'm guessing that's not your tack, though. Provide some calculations, data and evidence for your claims, or expect folks to be skeptical.

Oy Vey...

That's incorrect. As long as an aircraft has full dual controls, it can be used for training. What you CAN'T do is rent an EAB aircraft, so you can't charge for the training, but if you have a personal EAB aircraft, you can most certainly hire a CFI to train you in it.

If you believe that speed brakes somehow lower landing speeds, then I'd disagree that you understand their capabilities or how they work. The Landing Brake in a canard aircraft is purely a drag device - it does not either increase the lift coefficient of the wing nor decrease the lift generation, as speed brakes do. It does not affect the landing speed at all - it only adds drag to decrease the glide ratio of the aircraft. Speed brakes do the same thing by killing lift. The LB increases the "D" in L/D, while speed brakes decrease the "L" in L/D. Neither increases Cl or A, which are the only way to decrease landing speeds.

What is it you thing "speed brakes" are, and what do you think they do? It would be harder than "that hard" to add flaps - see the Beech Starship, and what they had to do to add flaps to the canard configuration.

The original COZY III used an O-235 engine, so 115 HP would be the minimum. The MGW of the COZY III was 1500 lb, although most people fly them at higher weights, due to empty weights that average around 1000 - 1100 lb. If you're attempting to use electric power for a COZY III, you'd replace the fuel weight (46 - 52 gallons @ 6 lb/gallon, or 276 - 312 lb) with battery weight, raising your empty weight by that much and reducing the payload by that much (can't have 1/2 batteries). Most COZY III's have O-320 engines, which are either 150 - 160 HP. The performance would be OK, but not great, with only 115 HP. With 150 - 160 HP, it's great. Realize that given current battery energy densities, you may be able to get about 30 - 60 minutes of endurance for the plane, but no more than that. And that's if you're lucky AND good.

There is none, and if you're not an engineer who's done load testing before, it's very unlikely that you'll do it correctly. I agree with Kent - if it's not required by the authorities, DON'T DO IT. But if it is, get in touch directly via email - I can give you the contact info for someone in Germany that WAS required to do this testing and built a full static test rig, with all the engineering done correctly to appropriately test the plane. Still a REALLY bad idea...

I have an excellent canard transition training instructor - an F-16 and F-35 test pilot at Edwards AFB who flies a COZY MKIV. Get in touch with me via the email below and I'll connect you.

This.

Bump - price has been reduced - see links for details.

Maybe. That's one option. Another is to use a single sump system and a single on-off valve, with a return line only to the sump. Far simpler. Not necessarily recommending it, because it'll involve modifying the vent lines, installing a sump, and other mods too. But the 6-port Andair (not SDS) valve is hardly the only solution. We've had all these discussions about a zillion times on the COZY and Canard-Aviators mailing lists. There are MANY options for valve type mounting and control.

If I were building an airplane today, I'd use the SDS EFI/EI system. It WILL allow for better leaning, as you can individually trim each cylinder for maximum efficiency. It is also simpler than Mechanical FI and more reliable. If I didn't already have $$6,500 invested in my FI/EI systems, I'd go with SDS. But since it's the best available system and costs no more than a Mech. EFI and dual EI system, it's definitely worth considering.

Be very careful in choosing a fuel valve and location. You're early in the build, and EFI will be far more common and likely by the time you're ready for an engine (See SDS EFII). Most EFI systems will require a return flow and a 6 port valve, if you want to do it right with two tanks.