Marc Zeitlin

For nine months out of the year, the temperature in Tehachapi will be between 60F and 90F, with humidity levels in the 30% range. It will rain once or twice in that time period, and the sky will have clouds in it maybe 30% of the time, but it will be VFR weather for all but one day of the nine months. For the other three months, it will be between 40F and 60F 80% of the time, and VFR weather 70% - 80% of the time. In Mojave, add 10F - 15F to the temps, and increase the VFR percentage to over 95% - maybe 10 days/year aren't VFR for the whole day. There are mountains, deserts, snow, heat, cold, national parks, cities, and whatever else one might want within a couple hour drive or flight. This is a wonderful place for folks that like to fly.

It's been raining and 30 - 35 degrees for the past two weeks :-). We had 4 inches of snow in our backyard in Tehachapi last weekend (for a day and a half). But mostly, you need a hangar so that you don't get blown away by the 40 kt. winds, or so that your airplane doesn't get sandblasted away by the 40 kt. winds blowing the sand/dust from the surrounding desert. Or so that your plane doesn't get dented by the 50 lb. tumbleweeds going by at 40 kts. Or so that YOU don't get dented by the 50 lb. tumbleweeds going by at 40 kts. Yeah, the sun beats up paint pretty good in the summer :-). Would that suntan lotion had any effect :-).

That's a step in the same direction, but two orders of magnitude different. One of the engineers at Scaled is building a QB RV-8. I visit the project every once in a while, and there's still a LOT of work to do, and he WILL know the plane inside and out completely, to the same extent that I know the COZY. That, I don't begrudge. He'll have 1500 - 2000 hours into the build, and that's more than enough in my eyes to qualify for Am-Built status, even with the QB kit. It's when you have a "QB kit", a factory or secondary "assistance center", and the builder ends up building 5% of the project because they used the loopholes of the "majority" rule to claim that the builder did more than 1/2 of the "operations" to build the plane. That's a load of BS, and if the FAA would tell 3 or 4 of those folks "sorry, don't know what you've got there, but it's not an experimental amateur built aircraft - good luck with that", this nonsense would stop fast. Boy, I wish I was a FSDO inspector sometimes...

Hence my comment in reply #6.

And if the FAA catches wind of that and investigates, he could easily lose the am-built certification, and have a $1.5M device that he's not allowed to use (in the am-built category, anyway). The EAA/FAA are having substantive discussions about cracking down on garbage like this (which pisses the crap out of me, having built two aircraft essentially from scratch, which is the INTENT of the am-built rule set).

It is, but there have been substantial modifications made to the aircraft since it's original certification. It's POSSIBLE (although not likely) that they were done by an individual and were enough to get it switched. I wouldn't bet on it, though - if I had to guess (and it's JUST a guess), it's still Exp. R&D, with the restrictions that implies.

There's a hangar for rent at TSP for $550/mo. - 50x42. I've been considering it with 3 others, but probably won't go for it. There are a few other REALLY nice ones that are a lot more, and are bigger, too. Mojave's hard to get hangar space at - gotta know the right folks and be in the right place at the right time. If you want CHEAP hangars, move to Nebraska, North Dakota, or some other state where no one wants to live anymore - TSP/MHV, while sort of in the middle of nowhere, is too close to LA to be cheap :-).

And climb rate - my understanding is that it can do over 4K fpm.

It burns 25-35 gph, and the Vne is 220 mph IAS. You figure it out :-). Way less than my plane, that's for sure. Factor in the two fuel stops he'll need while I stay in the air, and on long flights, I get there first.

Assuming that it went through the normal Scaled certification process, then it was certificated as an "Experimental, R&D", NOT "Experimental, Amateur Built" (it clearly wasn't built for "education and/or recreation"). "R&D" has substantial restrictions on what the aircraft can do and where it can go and when that "Am-Built" does not have, and generally needs to be renewed on occasion. It's entirely possible that in the intervening years, the aircraft was decertificated (especially since someone at Scaled claims that the airplane doesn't exist) and then re-certificated as an Exp. Am-Built, in which case it would be no different than your standard LE with respect to restrictions, Op-Limits, etc. As far as maintenance goes, in either case (R&D or Am-Built), anyone can WORK on the plane, and any A&P can sign of the yearly Condition Inspection. Not a big deal.

In no type of Part 91 aircraft does it matter (legally) which side the PIC takes. Left is merely a custom. There are a few folks that regularly fly from the right seat, and I do so when I'm giving familiarization flights.

What makes you believe that? While Mr. Hollmann is a respected and accomplished designer, he's had issues with Burt Rutan and canard aircraft. What he says about any of Burt's designs should be taken with a large number of grains of salt. See: http://eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=22870&page=12 for a discussion of some of these issues.

Why not - works for me :-).

Same as the wing. Modified Eppler 1230. Why?

The 5" Beringers listed above do not have the energy capacity to deal with a COZY MKIV - their website catalog makes that clear. For smaller, lighter, slower aircraft they would be fine. The 6" wheels would be OK for a COZY, brake energy wise, but then you'd have 6" wheels. There is one builder in France who, I'm told, is installing the 5" wheels - against recommendation - I suppose we'll eventually see just how inadequate they are. To paraphrase Utah Phillips, from the last line of his story "Moose Turd Pie": It's pretty, though.

Yeah, that's what I said. For a 1425 lb. LE, 80 kts requires 201K ft-lb./wheel. Either the series 56 or 57 are adequate for that. 80 kts should be adequate for a LE, even at relatively high DA's. Personally, I'd get the series 57's, since they're not much more $$$, and they'd cover you in a MGW LE up to 88 kts.

For a VE or LE, or other 2-seat canard that weighs less than 1600 lb. or so MGW, I'd agree with you. http://www.groveaircraft.com/braketechinfo.html shows the energy capacity of the brakes, and the high capacity 5" wheels are better than the high capacity Clevelands. The Groves are certainly well made. However, they're NOT sufficient for MGW ops on a COZY MKIV - the energy capacity just isn't there. The COZY archives are filled with discussions of just this issue over the past 13 years. I've run into a couple of the issues you bring up with the MATCO's, but I don't find them difficult to work on or deal with at all. They are, in the 5" wheels, the only ones that have the energy capacity required for MGW ops - aborted takeoffs, short runways, high DA ops, etc. I wish Grove/Cleveland made a high energy capacity 5" brake - 330K ft-lb or better, but they don't. Even the highest capacity 6" Grove wheel/brakes aren't quite adequate for the COZY MKIV. The web page shown above has a good calculator on it for determining required energy absorption capability. If you put in my MGW (2155 lb) with a 100 mph landing speed (not unreasonable for high DA standard landings, or aborted takeoffs even at low DA's), you get a requirement for 360K ft-lb per wheel. Neither Grove nor Cleveland makes such a beast in a 5" wheel, and even MATCO is marginal at 337K ft-lb., but it's the best there is without going to 6".

My email address is littered all over the web and on every posting that I make, but don't bother - given the price, I'm not a serious buyer. Good luck with that.

How much, and CURRENT pics?

If the ratios needed to be different on a volume basis for different hardeners, then you'd be right. But they don't. The MGS datasheet (for 285) explicitly calls out mixing ratios either by weight OR volume, and they're the same for all the hardeners. If the pump is calibrated correctly to a ratio of 100:50 (+/-2) by volume, then everything will be fine.

I believe you're thinking of the French SMA diesel: http://www.smaengines.com/ This is an extremely heavy 230 HP diesel which would be totally inappropriate for a COZY, even if you could buy one for an experimental. A cursory web search will turn up myriad discussions regarding the development (or lack thereof) of these engines, which have been just around the corner for at least 13 years now. While there are a couple that have flown, they are NOT shipping in volume to customers, and it's not clear when/whether they ever will. Every year at OSH it's the same story - very soon now... One positive aspect is that you don't have to think about engines until you're close to done with your project, which normally takes many years. Same with instrument panels. Worry about an engine later - build the airframe now.

If I were charging for membership, I'd agree with you. I know that you're pulling my leg, but for the sake of newbies, nothing is mandatory - there is no mechanism for enforcement, and no-one to enforce anything anyway. I think what Rich is trying to say is that it's important for you to avail yourself of the best possible sources of information when building something that can kill you. The COZY mailing list has the largest and most knowledgeable COZY flyer/builder user base of any of the email/web based information sources, so it's irresponsible for a COZY builder not to use this resource (although, IIRC, Rich, you're not a member - your email address fell off a while back... :-) ). It should also be "mandatory" to get the CSA newsletter (a paper publication), as it is also filled with many safety related articles, written by extremely knowledgeable canard folks.

If you are going to be building a COZY, you should join the COZY mailing list. See: http://www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list/ for instructions on how to join.

Not really. You've gotten some good advice and info here. The ONLY thing the RC lets you do that you can't already do without one is sign off the yearly CONDITION (not "conditional") inspection (this is the exp. am-built equivalent of an annual on a certificated aircraft). As Kent said, you'll probably get the RC, but even if you didn't, you'd only need a friendly A&P to sign off your inspection, and many will let you do all the work while they "supervise". Nope. See above. If you needed the A&P for 5 hours to help with the condition inspection, it would be a lot. In the context of owning a plane, that's mouse nuts. For an experimental, not much. The only thing I need an A&P or approved instrument shop for (and I DO have the RC for my aircraft) is the 24 month IFR inspections (even an A&P can't do those) or the occasional engine work that I don't have the time or inclination for.

Why? I have 4 different epoxy systems in different structural layups in my aircraft. All approved systems. (or were, at the time I used them).