Marc Zeitlin

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).

Sometimes. It depends on the epoxy. Some will require a substantial temperature raise for a long time, and some won't do it at all, while some just require coming back to regular curing temp (room temp). Depends on the epoxy. Search the COZY mailing list archives - there might be something about this in there - can't remember.

You need to be careful with letting curing epoxy get cold, though. SOME will cure OK as Lynn says, even when cold, but just take a lot longer to do so. But others will merely go into "B" stage, feel hard, but not be strong - they'll be brittle and weak. To be safe, unless you're absolutely sure that the epoxy you're using won't just go "B" stage on you, but will still truly "cure" when cold, you should keep your layups warm (above 60F, really) until they're cured.

There's at least one COZY fitted with a rear seat tank, and the owner intends to one day do the same thing with 175 gallons on board. Bill Swears attempted a flight from Hawaii to California in a COZY III, and ditched 100 miles off the Hawaii coast due to engine failure from oil loss. Bill's plane did NOT flip over when he hit the water, according to Bill. So apparently there is a way. Big mistake. They would add so much drag, you probably couldn't add enough fuel to make the trip. Plus, with the main gear being below and behind the CG, there'd be no skipping. And since the plane doesn't flip, you don't need to do anything to make it not flip. Yeah.... count me out on that one - I'm not putting explosive charges on my plane, thanks. Possible. No one has installed one in a COZY (yet), and certainly not tried it. If you're really interested in building a COZY MKIV, you should join the COZY mailing list.

First of all, Terry S. is talking about Long-EZ's here, with his suggestion for the LWX/LWY material replacement. On the LE, the gear mounts bolt to these pieces of wood, and have loads transferred directly into them via the bolted joints. On the COZY MKIV, there is no such loading or bolting - the gear tabs are bolted to the attachment points in the LG bulkheads. There's no reason to consider a different material for a COZY MKIV, which is what you're building :-).

You're not the only one. I assume you're pulling my leg here. I guarantee you that THIS was not the reason for any of the above. As far as other experimentals, all of the popular ones have about the same accident rates, from what I've read in random literature (although I have NOT done the calcs myself). See: http://www.eaa.org/homebuilders/faq.asp for info about the overall rate. Given the uncertainty in the assumptions I made about the flight hours, # flying, etc., I think that the COZY (once in Phase II) is about the same as the rest of the GA/experimental fleet, safety wise (and that the pilot is the largest single driver of accident statistics, not the plane type [except for a few outlier deathtraps, like the BD-5, etc.]). Here's a followup link that indicates that the RV accident rate is about the same as the experimenta/GA fleet as a whole. Ron Wanttaja did the analysis, and I trust him implicitly. http://rvhotline.expercraft.com/articles/2007/rv_accidents.html

I've flown formation a few times - it's a lot of fun (and work). Don't want to do it all the time, but it's great practice for controlling the aircraft. As much as I'd like to agree with you, I don't. See: http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/2007_OSH_Presentation.pdf Slide #9. There are many assumptions there in attempting to get at a COZY accident rate (both fatal and non), but it's reasonably clear that while the numbers might be massaged to get the COZY accident rate to be about the same as the overall GA accident rate, it's not reasonable to claim that the COZY is safer than other GA aircraft - the numbers just do NOT support the claim. If anything, it's more reasonable to claim that they're somewhat less safe. Now, many of the accidents have occurred during the 40 hour Phase I period, so you could make the argument that once we get the plane out of the "experimental" phase, the accident rate drops close to that of the rest of the GA population, and I think that's a valid argument. But what that shows is that the issue with aircraft accidents isn't which plane you fly, but the pilot flying it, and we mostly already know that. The only reason I responded to this is the repeated claims of "far safer" - it's just not correct, as much as I'd like it to be so, since I fly one. The plane IS stall/spin resistant, and that eliminates one accident mode, but apparently that accident mode is a small enough percentage of the total accidents that it doesn't affect the overall rate significantly. Sorry, Dennis, but you'll just have to remove this argument as a justification for flying a COZY instead of something else.