Marc Zeitlin

Having flown with Steve in his airplane at RR this year, I had a medium depth discussion with him regarding the unit in his plane. He's been an RCH away from giving up on it a number of times, and it continues to have bugs and issues. They're not in the basic functionality, but are <both major and minor> stuff that's claimed to work and doesnt, and causes operational issues in the cockpit. Some are intermittent, some are continual. Steve's issues are NOT with installation - he's had his unit inspected at the factory, and IIRC, they assisted with the installation and wiring. He's still hoping that they will get these things working (eventually), but "resigned" is the word I'd use to describe his attitude. It's a beautiful unit (he's got the large one, as well as a smaller backup one), and if it did what was claimed it would be worth the $$$, but based on Steve's feedback to me, I wouldn't go near it with a 10 foot pole - maybe in a few more years... That's MY opinion, not Steve's. He gave up on the P-Mag, while I've stuck with them - to each his own. As has been pointed out, the Grand Rapids Units that Chris Esselstyn has in his aircraft (which I flew in with Chris at OSH) has no such issues, according to Chris - it does what's claimed. While I do not have the Dynon EFIS, I do have a Dynon EMS. It also does what they claim it does, with one niggling issue that probably involves me having a wrong resistor value for the tach reading - my issue, not theirs. I monitor the Dynon on-line forum, and the type of pissing and moaning about either the EFIS or EMS systems that goes on on the BMA forum does not exist there. There are questions and complaints, but they NEVER involve something that Dynon claims there system does, but actually doesn't. They're almost always requests for functional enhancements or explanations of how to make a certain thing work, which does, after the fix is tried. All that said, the GR and Dynon EFII (as well as most of the rest) have less functionality than the BMA (and less claimed functionality). Pick your poison.

Very clean, very straight, nice edges. None of that matters, however, as almost all the edges of every bulkhead will get taped to something, filled with something, attached to something, or covered by something. Except MAYBE the instrument panel, since the leg holes are pretty visible. Nothing else, though. Agreed. A hacksaw, Fein sander, Dremel cutter, sharp knife (in "green" stage) or air grinder with cutting blade will do the same thing, along with a sanding block. Don't remember those claims, but as one of the (not opponents, but) detractors of this method, I would claim that it's a total waste of time. You get perceived quality you don't need, and parts that are perfectly shaped to paper templates that aren't perfect, so you may/will need to adjust the size/shape of the bulkheads later anyway (with the sanding block) to get them to fit. Perfect edges that get buried in flox/micro corners and 2 BID tape joints is NOT where I want to spend my time. It's just time. If I was going to build three or four airplanes at once, I'd probably do this, because THEN there would be some economy of scale, but otherwise... Nice video, though.

Actually, when solo, there's no requirement to where a parachute. Only when carrying passengers, per 91.307©. So unless the pilot doesn't know what kind of aircraft he's flying, it was NOT a Bateleur, but an "Ultimate Biplane": http://www.ultimatebiplane.com/ and: http://moleski.net/ULTBIPE/n38pc.htm What's interesting is that the FAA database HAS the plane listed as a Bateleur. The above web site says: "This aircraft was completed in 1993 and has been designated as a Bateleur 2000 named "Plumb Crazy". Makes no sense, but there you are. I'm guessing it's a confluence of names, and nothing more. So, we can now say that this particular accident has zero applicability to Rutan Derivative canard aircraft, rather than just epsilon (if it was a Bateleur canard), since it's a dissimilar aircraft (conventional biplane), designed for aerobatics, in a maneuver that our aircraft cannot enter.

Just play "Enjoy Yourself", written by Herb Magidson, sung by Todd Snider, and you'll get the gist of the presentation. Or wait a while until I get the recording, like for the years before.

Then you didn't read the presentation carefully enough :-). See slides 7 and 16. Without the audio, you miss the detailed explanations, but the matching LE's makes the separation far worse.

Let's go through this once again. ANYONE can work on an experimental amateur built aircraft. Anyone. You, some bum off the street; your friends, your grandmother, aliens in Area 51 - pick one (or many). You can do any and all maintenance, repairs, modifications, updates, ANYTHING, at any time, for any reason. The ONLY thing you can't do, as J. Random Airplane Worker, to an experimental amateur built aircraft is sign off the yearly Condition Inspection (not Conditional, and not Annual). For that, you either need to be an A&P (and do NOT need an IA), or you need to be the possessor of the Repairman's Certificate for that particular aircraft (NOT the aircraft "type"). That's it. The ONLY restriction that buying an experimental amateur built aircraft has is that you can't sign off the CI.

Bad form to followup my own posts, I know... After some discussion with the fabricators who made the part that we tested braid on, and then went away from it :-), I'm going to say that the braid is good for things that have relatively constant radii, but might be difficult for things that have wildly varying radii and/or shapes. I'd vote for the plans method here.

I had the same thought regarding that angle, and others have in the past as well, as searching the COZY mailing list archives will indicate. The only thing I can come up with is that there's some combination of torsional stresses, shear stresses and bending stresses that make the 35 degrees better for the combination of stresses than a 45 degree layup for pure torsion would be. Or maybe the designer plucked the number out of a hat, or somewhere even darker :-). Doubtful, but would hardly be the first time that the thing commonly called "intuition" provided an answer in these aircraft :-). I dunno - maybe. The braid's non-trivial, and the plans method is really not hard. I'm guessing 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other, but it's just a guess. The latter, I think. See above. Since I know that you're vac. bagging, I'll say this for the benefit of others - I would NOT suggest using the braid for anything unless you're bagging it - it's very stiff, and difficult to get to stay where you put it without some constant force on it.

Interesting comments, coming from a guy who, on 2/9/2007 wrote (on the other canard web forum): "... So those tempted to offer a nasty cutting remark, beyond the little humorous sarcasm might like to GROW UP, and offer the little bit of kindness that they never got as a child." Pot, Kettle, Black, etc. 6' 2" and 260 lb. would hardly be the largest person flying GA aircraft, and would barely match the largest person I've flown with in my COZY. Lynn's comment of hitting up the Chino crowd is a good one. Also check out www.ez.org, and join the canard-aviators mailing list to make more contacts. You just missed a 12 aircraft canard fly-in at Corona a week and a half ago...

While this certainly looks like a compact, reasonable system, the "Wright-Hanka" roll trim system as shown on: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/bsiu/Ch17_01.html might be a bit simpler, and guarantees no hysteresis from friction in the spring system. I don't have either - just the plans system, but if I ever install an electric roll trim (which I don't really think is worth the effort as a retrofit, but I'd probably install if I were starting over), I think the WH system is the one I'd use from a simplicity and operations standpoint. My $0.02.

Mr. Zeitlin, or preferably "Marc". Good. You seem to be the type who would live up to your commitments. So unless these guys are magicians, and can do what nobody else can, the will not be able to produce 180 HP in a 155 lb. internal combustion engine reliably. No piston engines do it, and the Mazda rotaries don't do it either. Aircraft engines are lucky to get 0.5 HP/lb., and while auto engines (not racing) may have peak HP levels in the 1 HP/lb region, they almost never run at peak HP for any length of time. I've heard it a couple of times before, but I'm not totally sure, after 700 hours of doing it myself, that I know precisely what it means. Folks that have flown with me can attest to that. Glad to hear it - the guys I spoke to (dealers, remember) didn't seem to be completely familiar with this. I don't need illumination, thanks. I trust that you're telling me the truth. The hangars have been renumbered - I don't know where "G" is (was). Listen -whatever your partner might be, or know, and I'm not doubting his knowledge or ability at all, if rotary engines, which have been around in one form or another for 50 odd years were all that there proponents claimed them to be in the form of weight, reliability, simplicity, quality, fuel consumption, etc., they would have long since displaced piston engines in cars, lawnmowers, aircraft, and anywhere else that piston engines are used. They have not. This is not due to any conspiracy, but to the fact that they're pretty much equivalent to piston engines in all these areas, and have no large advantage anywhere. Not much worse, not much better - not much reason to switch. There has been more than enough time for them to prove themselves superior, and if they had, they'd have displaced the piston variety. They haven't. You want to use them - fine - they work - I don't think people SHOULDN'T use them. But claiming that some brand new, unproven engine is going to revolutionize aircraft powerplants is just silly. Hence my bet :-). So much the better for you. Remember, 180 HP, independent dyno testing, 1000 hours without a failure. Having never been to Ireland, I take what I can get here. And being an American, I have to have SOME tendency toward mass production, however much of a renaissance man I may view myself as. At any rate, when I drink beer, I drink Guinness (once every couple of months), and when I drink liquor, I drink tequila straight up (don't care which - can't tell the difference, but no worm). I am not German. I'm Jewish. I wouldn't know them if they fell on me. I'm not going for quality, here - I'm going for viscosity.

No, no, no - you must be mistaken. They only have three moving parts - they MUST be more reliable than piston engines. Doesn't everyone keep saying so?

I spent some time talking to a dealer for this engine at Copperstate this year. Actually, the two guys who were a dealership. Even though the two of them were building a COZY, and were very nice guys, they seemed less than optimally knowledgeable about these engines. Didn't know the weights, accessories, etc. Are there any flying? No. Is this vaporware? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... If THIS engine is the future of GA, we should all go buy boats. Tell you what - if there's a 180 HP version of this engine (independently verified on a Dyno) that's lasted 1000 hours of running withing the next 5 years (by 12/31/2012), I'll give you $100. If not, you give me a case of Guinness (yes, I've been burned on a bet like that before, by a non-entity who backed out after losing), but I'm a sucker for sure things. Hence the vast per-capita hours being racked up by all the rotary engine powered aircraft, vs. the piston powered ones. For the sarcasm impaired, :-). Again, with the unsupported claims of improved reliability. Theory, Practice, etc. Show me the failure rates of rotary powered car engines vs. piston powered car engines. Any different? Cursory web searches indicate that early Mazda rotary engines were NOT reliable, and although enthusiasts like to point out that a rotary won the 24 hours of LeMans, so must have been reliable, this only serves to accentuate the fact that ALL other LeMans races other than that ONE have been won by piston powered automobiles. But you'd never need to overhaul them, because they'd never get any time on them. See my proposed bet, above. WHEN we see a lot more of this engine, like it's existence and the fact that it can propel AN aircraft, then it's worth discussing. Right now, it's no more than a Zoche.

That's true - look at all the exciting new engines they've developed over the past 60 years... :-).

You realize, of course, that that article was written in August, 2000, and is over 7 years old. Let's take a look at which of the engines mentioned in that article currently exist, are for sale, and are certificated: Continental: no, no, no Morane Renault: no, no, no Deltahawk: yes, no, no Lycoming: no, no, no Zoche: don't make me laugh Williams EJ22: no, no, no Agilis TF-800: no, no, no I feel like Amy Winehouse singing "Rehab". We're one for 21 in "yes"'s. Two not mentioned were the Thielert and the SMA (was a collaboration with Continental), and they're the only ones that are yes, yes, yes to both. So call it 7 for 28, if you want to be generous.

Yes, although there's no issue with the NAV (or anything else) in the fuselage somewhere. There are numerous discussions of antennae placement in the COZY archives. Here's what you need (or should plan for): 2 COM - winglets (foil, vertically polarized) 2 NAV - wings/fuselage bottom (foil, horizontally polarized) 1 GS - wing (foil, horizontally polarized) 1 MB - canard/fuselage/wing (foil, polarization not important) 1 Transponder - inside fuselage nose or strake tips - does NOT have to be external (short "whip", aluminum ground plane, vertical) 1 GPS - fuselage nose (per instructions) 1 XM Weather - fuselage nose (per instructions) 1 Strike Finder - strake tips (ask Nick Ugolini) That'll keep you busy for a while. No. In theory, the MB should be longitudinal, but since you're always within a few miles of the MB when you're using it, I've been told by antenna engineers that you could use a wet piece of spaghetti oriented any way you'd like and it would work fine. I've never had an issue with my MB antenna reception, and it's transverse in the canard.

I've got my Marker Beacon Antenna under the lower skin of my canard, centered. The cable exits an inch or two forward of the torque tube.

I think you're referring to these two "reports": http://users.wpi.edu/~stay1or/INTROW.html and: http://users.wpi.edu/~stay1or/canard2.htm We've discussed these a couple of times here, once a year and a half ago at: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11252&postcount=74 and again a month ago at: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16827&postcount=53 I wouldn't use any of the "conclusions" that were drawn in these papers (and I couldn't find any reference to a 14" canard height above the main wing in them, but I didn't kill myself looking) as an indication of what anyone should or shouldn't do regarding full scale aircraft (or even models, for that matter). As I said, these were interesting undergrad experiments, but they're far more useful as a learning experience in how to use wind tunnels for the experimenter than they are as information sources for aerodynamicists.

No performance difference has ever been measured on any aircraft that has changed from a straight to a dihedral canard.

As has been discussed previously, the reason for the 205/206 NOT being approved for VE/LE/COZY's had nothing to do with structural properties, and all to do with cure times and exotherming. Since the Berkut KIT comes with all major parts fabricated (spars, wings, etc), and the only thing that the builder does is ASSEMBLE parts with tapes, etc., the dangers of exotherming from large, deep, heavy layups is very much reduced. There's NO WAY you could lay up a spar cap using 105/205/206 without having an exotherm, but 2 BID tapes are no problem. Since you're building from scratch, not a kit, I'd stay away from the 205/206 for any of the large layups, and just use them for tapes/filling, if I were you (and anyone else not building from a kit).

Way. 7890

Sherman, set the wayback machine to 1995, or 1996. Wow - look at Oshkosh - I haven't been here for 10 years. Cool stuff - look at this - here's a 4-cylinder 2-stroke diesel - company name, Deltahawk or somesuch - just perfect for the COZY I just started building. When will they have them ready? What - next year? That's terrific - I won't quite be ready for an engine then, so by the time I am a couple years later, they'll have a bunch of them in the field with lots of time on them. Fast forward to 2007. Still in beta testing... Look how blue I've gotten in the intervening 11 years, holding my breath for so long. Not healthy. What people SAY they're going to do, what they PLAN to do, and what they actually DO are three very different things. Only what they DO matters.

Dr. Pepper out the nostrils again - dang!

Elimination of the centerline heat duct will also substantially weaken the structure of the fuselage, too. The heat duct is an integral part of the stiffening of the fuselage floor. I would NOT recommend removing it, no matter what you use for heating. Maybe, if you can afford the headroom loss.

There's Steve Drybread's Berkut canard coming off due to the canard attach bolts not being installed. There's Gus Sabo's plane coming apart at high altitude, probably due to hypoxia and flight through T-Storms in Mexico. There's one report in the CP's of a VE/LE winglet departing the aircraft due to peel ply being left in the structural layups. There's a French COZY that had a fatal crash, and post crash inspection showed multiple build errors in layups in multiple areas of the aircraft - IIRC the COZY newsletters have that one reported. There may very well be more that I can't think of. Read the CP's from start to finish. Read the COZY newsletters from start to finish. Read the accident reports on the NTSB web site (and the two reports that I've got on my web site).