Marc Zeitlin

OK - a good start. Think about it - you're suggesting moving the AC forward while you move the CG backward. I'll ask again: What do you know about the relationship of Aerodynamic Center(s) to Centers of Gravity? Knowing the definition of each isn't sufficient. Go back and review what the relationship should be, and then think about what the movement of the canard forward will do to that relationship, and then think about why the relationship needs to be what it does.

What do you know about the relationship of Aerodynamic Center(s) to Centers of Gravity, and how to determine the Aerodynamic Center of an aircraft?

Folks: I have received preliminary information from the EAA on the scheduling of the OSH 2008 Canard and COZY fora. The Canard Forum will be on Thursday, 7/31/2008 at 2:30 PM - 3:45 PM, and the COZY forum will be on Friday, 8/1/2008 at 1:00 PM - 2:15 PM. I'll have the locations as the time gets closer, but obviously they'll both be in the forum tents. As I mentioned in a previous email, a number of volunteer presenters have had to drop out, but we've still got more than enough information to share in the 75 minutes alloted for each forum. When the official schedules and locations are published, I'll list the presentations in each forum. Hopefully, folks like Terry Schubert, Mark Beduhn and Daryl/Kim Lueck can give us some info on the CSA weenie roast, the COZY/canard BBQ at Mark's hangar, and the COZY dinner - thanks to all who organize these things! Responses/Q&A on the COZY/canard-aviators mailing lists, please.

Jon, please get rid of the 3D graphing. If you're not graphing 3 parameters, you don't need 3 dimensions. Read Edward Tufte's "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information". Without the 3rd dimension, the histogram will be a lot easier to read and understand.

As I've said many times, in theory, theory and reality are the same, but in reality, they're not. But this isn't a question of theory - it's reality :-). Same here. There are two things going on. In the case you postulate, the epoxy starts out at viscosity "X" at time zero. After most of the pot life is gone, the viscosity will increase to "X+17", due to the chemical reaction that begins occurring as soon as you start mixing it. In THIS case, the thickening isn't from heat loss. In many other cases, however, where the epoxy comes out of a pump at 90F and gets spread on something that's at 50-60F within a few minutes, the thickening is (in the short term) due to heat loss. In EITHER case, as long as the chemical reaction isn't TOO far along, heating the epoxy with a hair dryer (or heat tent, or whatever) will lower the viscosity (unless it's so far along that the extra heat merely "kicks" the epoxy into the "B" stage, and it gets rubbery fast). The thickening "starts" immediately upon mixing the two components, but the RATE of thickening is very slow at first, and only near the end of the pot life does it accelerate. At any time prior to that, heating the epoxy will lower the viscosity, but NOT because it's stopping the chemical reaction - just the opposite - it's accelerating it, but the decrease in viscosity due to heat is way more than the increase in viscosity due to increased reaction, until you get near the end of the pot life time (AT THE NEW, HOTTER TEMPERATURE). Make sense? Answerhood, eh? We don't need none of that big-city talk around here, bub.

That's incorrect. In the early stages, while still within it's "pot life", the viscosity of the epoxy is highly dependent upon its temperature. As it cools, the viscosity rises substantially. Using the hair dryer lowers the viscosity (and ACCELERATES the cure), but is not changing the "polymerization" from one state to another.

The object here is to have 3/8" OD tubing with a slightly larger than 1/4" ID, so that the 1/4" bolts used to hold the seat belts down will fit. Basically, any metal will work fine (except for the really soft aluminums). It gets covered by enough glass that the metal isn't the weak point.

I don't remember you mentioning that in our discussions. If Mr. Fitzgerald had anything whatsoever to do with this project (or any other, for that matter), I would run as fast as I could away from it. Reference the COZY newsletters and http://www.cozybuilders.org/Fitzgerald_Composites_Warning/ for more information on this vendor.

Why would you want these? Why do you think they use them on the Lancairs (and Mooneys, etc.)?

LF is in Bristol, WI. This plane is in Long Beach, CA.

I assume you mean "will", not "with". I am told by folks that have flown both that the COZY flies like a sports car (which it does), while the Velocity flies like a pickup truck (more like C-172) in the air. The biggest difference with either aircraft (or any canard, for that matter) is on landing - you really don't fully flare, as you do in the training aircraft. You find the correct attitude and hold it there until touchdown. IAS on landing is far more critical, too - without flaps, you'll float forever if you're hot, and you'll slam the nose down if you're slow. It's not really hard - generally 3-5 approaches and landings will get a person to the point where they could land fine by themselves. I've only had to take the stick away from someone once, in about 10 transitions. Takeoff is a little different than the spam cans, but not a lot - PIO's are possible when learning, but no-one I've transitioned has had them. They won't fly themselves off the ground, though. Mostly I find myself saying "don't pull, don't pull, don't pull, etc." while getting folks to land on short final. Flying the planes in maneuvers and cruise is trivial, if your eyes are open. At any rate, certainly training in a COZY will help in a Velocity - whether the converse is true, I can't say - I'd expect it would help a bit. Again, the motor skills part of flying these planes isn't the hard part - it's the transitioning to the higher performance aircraft (of any type) and gaining experience in cross-country trips.

Only if they want to talk to themselves...

Cessna 152's and 172's are not particularly good airplanes for training to fly canards for a number of reasons (and I say this as someone who mostly flew them before flying my COZY). First, they're a lot slower, so in the COZY, stuff happens faster, and you need to think faster and think further ahead of the plane. The pattern, especially, can be busy, and slowing down for it must occur a lot sooner. 15 hours, plus the time getting the PPL, is not a lot. Not only that, but as a Cross-Country plane that can take you 1/2 way across the USA in a day, CC experience is a must - if you've never planned and flown a trip that takes you across two or three time zones, two mountain ranges, and through two weather fronts all on the same day, and had to make the decisions along the way that go along with adjusting for such conditions, again, more experience would most probably be appropriate. All that said, your personal abilities in the airplane will be the single most important factor in whether you can deal with the COZY/Velocity, but on the AVERAGE, you're a little light on time and experience. Well, I'm inclined to agree with them (again, on the average - I don't know your PERSONAL abilities). What I'd recommend is to find someone who's willing to let you fly in their plane with them and give you a familiarization flight. It's certainly possible that with a couple of hours and 5-10 takeoffs and landings, you'd be fine. But it's also possible that whatever your motor skill capabilities, the judgment refinement that comes with more varied flying experiences is what will be most important for your safety. A monkey can be taught to FLY a plane - but it's the judgment that comes from experience and further that will keep you safe. Fly early, fly often, fly many varied aircraft. Fly aircraft that are faster and more complex. Practice landing the 1x2's with no flaps at 1.7 Vs. Fly the pattern at 100 kts. Get time in a Mooney/Bonanza, or something similar. Find a COZY/Velocity owner to familiarize you. See how all that works out. Or just get the COZY/Velocity and fly it - it's been done by low time pilots before, and they generally don't kill themselves. It's not the path I would take, though.

Ask Berkut flyers. Expect to get what - 10-15 kts better than a Long-EZ with the same power, Richard? Maybe 200-220 kts with an O-360 burning 10-11 gph, and the 250 kts at 14-15 gph with an O-540? That sound in the ballpark? These would be TAS's, at altitude. Richard (or others) can fill you in better on the #'s. See the FAR's for the O2 requirements at altitude. The rudders are ON the winglets, but there are modifications that may be done to the way that the winglets are mounted to the wings that can substantially decrease drag. You think that's flaming? Being told to make sure that your expectations are reasonable? Flaming would be: "you're a complete idiot for even considering the Zoche, since everyone with 1/2 a brain knows that it's vaporware and always will be". But I didn't say that, or anything like it. IOW, "I'd like someone else to do my work for me". Do your homework, then ask questions. If nothing else, ask where to find the information you seek. Which info you were given in my first response, down at the bottom of the posting. And you got them. Whether you like the answers or not is a different issue. You were also pointed to a treasure trove of useful information to read through. There's a lot to read, and you'll learn a lot. Including whom to pay attention to, and whom to ignore. Doing your research on what your requirements are (and not just "wow, that's so cool!!!") and what the options are is the single biggest factor in determining whether you'll actually finish a project that you start (which most people don't). Also, join the CSA, get the newsletter and read ez.org.

You won't get 250 kts. on 10 GPH. Those are independent #'s. Then you should know to ignore it. It's no different than claiming that you want anti-gravity, and you know it's not quite available yet. The Zoche wasn't available when I started building in 1995 (even though it was right around the corner), and it isn't any closer to being available now. There are many external tank mods to be made - there's really no place to put 10 gal. inside. Nope. Not a chance. Brand new plane. There are some methods, involving winglets, cooling drag, and some others. Web searches will find some of them. That would be Richard Riley - one of the principals in Berkut. He won't tell you anything substantially different than what I tell you, though, at least with respect to these questions. Go right ahead, if you can find an unbuilt kit, but make sure your expectations (of yourself and your travel needs, as well as the aircraft) are reasonable - not pie-in-the-sky. Then spend a LOT of time reviewing the archives of this forum, as well as the COZY mailing list, the canard-aviators mailing list, and any and all web sites that you can find. It's all been asked before.

Yes. Get new plates. The pins must fit in the holes precisely. This was one of the reasons Burt went away from this wing attach design to the Long-EZ method.

Until now, there hasn't been any reason - it looked like you were doing a reasonable job. Of course not. I've only built two aircraft that have flown safely for hundreds of hours, am an aeronautical engineer working for Scaled, and have an A&P certificate. What do I know about composite aircraft, compared to a machinist (which I've also been in the dim, dark past) building his first airplane? You'll have to forgive me for my regrettable lack of humility. The issue isn't with the people you trust, or what they're teaching you, the issue was with what you wrote. You did not state what layup it was that you were working on, nor did you state that you were using mold release. You said "I waxed up some mylar...", giving the impression that you were using wax on what COULD have been a surface that would have layups adhered to it later. In any case, as Lynn has pointed out, even if there would be no structural layups applied, you still want the finish micro/etc. to stick to the surface. Mold release, depending on the type and it's compatibility with the epoxy being used, is probably OK - wax is not. And your description of vac. bagging is incomplete at best - generally (not always, but generally), peel ply is applied to the mold surface so as to give the finished composite surface some texture to mitigate the need for sanding after release and ensure that the mold release doesn't touch the surface of the glass, but the surface of the peel ply. When I need advice about where to post, I'll try to remember to ask you, thanks. That's pretty funny. You should learn to accept constructive criticism better, without becoming both defensive and aggressive at the same time, and if you don't like hearing what I have to say (or what Lynn, or anyone else has to say), feel free to put me (or them) on your "ignore" list, or whatever it's called in a web forum.

I'm not sure exactly which layups you're referring to here, but _I_ wouldn't purchase this canard from you now that you've covered it with wax, and I'd recommend that no-one else purchases it, either. The plans (LE, COZY) are very specific not to use wax paper and or wax covered cups when mixing epoxy - there are numerous approved mold release agents (PVA, etc.) and wax is not among them. Putting wax in contact with the wet epoxy is very not recommended. You're begging for adhesion problems (or potential ones) down the road. If I were you, I'd sand off that last layer of glass and re-do it. And for next time, just use 4-mil poly sheeting. Doesn't stick to the epoxy at all, does what you want, and peels right off.

Boy, it's REALLY bad form to post personal emails on public fora. I'll have to remember not to ever reply to you privately...

Remi is correct - you purchased (or were sent) the wrong tire. See: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/builderkits.php?PN=01-01440 You want P/N 06-08100 and the tube that goes with it. Don't know what you have, but it's obviously not correct for the COZY MKIV.

Be more specific - are you looking for primary training (not possible), a checkout, Instrument training, or what?

That's not correct. There is no FAR that requires either two people or a pilot to hand prop a plane. It's certainly smart to have two people, and good if one is at least familiar with the controls, if not a pilot, but it's not a requirement.

There have been many discussions of canards on grass/sand/gravel/unimproved runways both here and in the COZY mailing list archives. Search for them. There is no way in hell that I would even think about landing on sand or gravel with my plane, no matter how big the tires. You want a different plane.

Which means what, with respect to the original claim that they were insane to attempt the landing in the first place? Either pilot in the aircraft is qualified and trained, and either has the right to fly the plane with the captain's permission. What's your point?

For those so eager to castigate and pummel the pilots of this flight, here are the reported winds for the airport in question at the time in question: 29028G48KT The runways available were 23 and 33, so either the wind would be 60 degrees off the runway heading or 40 degrees off the runway heading. For runway 23, with a 60 degree crosswind, the crosswind component would be: W(23c) = 28 * cos(30) = 24 kts. W(23g) = 48 * cos(30) = 41 kts. For runway 33, with a 40 degree crosswind, the crosswind component would be: W(33c) = 28 * cos(50) = 18 kts. W(33g) = 48 * cos(50) = 30 kts. Both well within the aircraft's capabilities. Still think that they did something wrong? Facts before emotions, folks.