Marc Zeitlin

I just bought a SC-01 B-160 GyroFlug Speed Canard (I just can't stand not buying things at auction) today and I was looking for any advice about maintaining/flying it...... Any help would be appreciated.

I'm not really sure what advice you're looking for - since it's a certificated aircraft, you need an A&P to work on it (as you stated) and there's a relatively limited # of things you can do yourself. Maybe if you were more explicit in what you're looking for.....

 

Also, given what these things cost (unless you stole it at the auction), why would you buy this thing? You can get a primo COZY MKIV for the same $$$, and do all the work on it yourself (as well as be faster, carry more, etc.)? Just curious.....

I am considering buying a cozy MARK IV, and of course I wanted to see if there was anybody in the Riverside/Corona/Chino area that has one.....

There are (AFAICT) 8 or so flying COZY's of one flavor or another in the greater L.A. area. One in Tehachapi, one in Rosamond, one up near Barstow, a couple in the Compton area, and a few out on the southern side of the San Gabriels (Cable, Chino, etc.).

 

We're planning on having a COZY get together up at the Big Bear airport (L35) on Saturday, Oct. 22nd, for breakfast - if we're lucky, there will be 4 - 8 COZY's there. You're certainly welcome to come and check them out - I can't guarantee a ride, especially at 250 lb. and 6800 ft. elevation, but you can try them on for size, and talk about simple mods for larger folks (6' 1" is no problem, but 250 lbs is getting on the large side [although my CFII was 240 lbs and 5' 9", and we were able to squeeze into my plane, which is set up for smaller folks]).

 

If you're seriously thinking about buying an already flying COZY, you'd be well served to be on the COZY mailing list - most of the 8 flyers in the LA area are on the list (as are ~70 other COZY flyers and ~250 builders). You should also join the canard-aviators mailing list, as well as the Central States Association (paper quarterly newsletter).

 

There is one COZY that's for sale in the Phoenix area at this point, and possibly one on Long Island, NY. Generally, about two to five COZY's change hands every year.

 

Contacting me via email at the address listed below is the most likely way to elicit a response.

.... and won't flutter as long the winglet line is "inline" - or in other words the rudder is not deflected outward at rest......

The only time folks have seen a problem is when they're "shimming" a rudder out to correct for a slightly off-center ball condition during test flying. ..... but if you unload the rudder too much it will flutter.

You are correct that "unloading" the rudder can cause a flutter susceptibility, but that will only happen if the rudder is shimmed INWARD, not OUTWARD. Deflecting the rudder outward ADDS a load to it, so unless the shim (rudder stop, whatever you want to call it) has compliance (as mine had), it won't be a flutter contributor.

 

There have been numerous instances of rudder flutter caused by folks adjusting their rudders inward (for trim reasons). This unloads the rudder. Shimming the opposite rudder outward would have achieved the same trim condition, without the flutter issue (if the shim/stop was stiff).

So for us that haven't gotten to that point in construction you did not (initially) install a hard stop on the rudder?

No. I put in an adjustable stop, so that I could tailor the T.E. position if need be for initial rigging. Turns out there was compliance in the system, and at 202 mph IAS the rudder(s) would flutter. Once I took out the adjustable stop and put in hard stops (blobs of flox, sanded flat to give the right rudder position), the flutter disappeared.

 

The full description of the problem and solution is in the COZY archives from late 2002, I believe.

Yep... but since the rudder only travels one way, how can it flutter?

Since I am one of the folks that has had rudder flutter, the answer is "easily", if you modify it as I did (don't have a HARD stop for the inward direction).

 

With respect to the "Full Length" rudder, the only reason not to do it from top to bottom is for the protection in a tip-back. This is not insignificant, but it's not an overwhelming reason not to do it. Velocities don't have to worry about that, since they always sit on all three wheels - no grazing.

Folks:

 

I was asked by Bob Tilley to be a member of an accident evaluation team for Rotor-EZ N2992 which crashed in May, fatally injuring the pilot. I have posted the accident evaluation at:

 

http://www.cozybuilders.org/N2992_Accident_Eval/

 

The evaluation team consisted of Bob Tilley, Steve Wright, myself, and one other well respected member of the canard community who prefers to remain anonymous.

 

This analysis is based on some first hand visual inspection, visual inspection of photographs of the crash site and wreckage, verbal reports of eyewitnesses, and a small amount of testing of crash aircraft hardware and equivalent hardware. Although this report was written by Marc J. Zeitlin, it is the forensic engineering judgement of the whole team, and this analysis and the resulting conclusion is the consensus opinion of all four people on the investigation team.

 

I believe that this analysis is far more detailed and accurate than anything the NTSB is likely to produce, given the lack of familiarity with the airplane type and canard concerns, and the small amount of time devoted to the investigation.

 

This is clearly a generic "canard aircraft" issue, and the canard-aviator's mailing list is the venue which presents itself to the widest canardian audience. Although I have posted the announcement of the publication of this report to the COZY mailing list, the Canardzone Forum, and the Canard Aviation Forum as well, I do not want to carry on four conversations about the same thing. If other members of the investigation team would like to reply in other venues, that is certainly their choice - in the interest of time and energy (mine), I will only follow discussions on the C-A list.

As long as I have been surfing thru this Forum, I hardly ever see anyone up north of the 49th

 

Is there any Canadian builders? if so, --- Where are ya?

 

 

Marshall Adams

The best way to find other COZY builders (regardless of any voluntary map) is to join the COZYBUILDERS mailing list at the web site listed below. You will get a database of members and can review it for folks in your area.

 

Email me with the correct info to join.

Another enlightenment. Marc can you post a link or tell us where to look for that on EAA webpages?

 

Thanks,

You need to be a member:

 

http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/

 

There are numerous articles on all phases of homebuilding.

 

If you're not a member, you should be.

If the original builder was not a commercial venture, regardless of what you paid him/her for it, you will qualifiy for the 51% rule. In effect, the rule says that 51% must be built by a non-comercial entity. You may have to prove to the FAA that you have the proper knowledge of construction to obtain your repairman's certificate for that plane.

Before this gets too far away from the facts, let me state for the record that there is no "51% rule". There's just no such thing. No place in the FAR's is the number 51% mentioned with respect to amateur built experimental aircraft. The rule says that the "majority" of the aircraft must be built by builders for "education and/or recreation".

 

There is also no rule that states that any one person must build the majority of the aircraft (or 51% of the aircraft) in order to get the Repairman's Certificate for that aircraft. If 10 people build an airplane, and each do 10% of the work, ONE of them can get the RC for the plane.

 

Folks, all this info (and more) is on the EAA's web pages. Let's not spread disinformation.

 

Make acquisition of the prior builder's log and pictures part of the sales agreement. Without them, you will have a lot of splaining to do to the FAA

This, and the advice to get an experienced composite canarder to inspect the project before purchase, is good advice.

....do you believe that the canard is capable of surviving a bird strike intact? Given let's say cruise speed and a duck for example.....

I believe the answer is yes, and I believe this because at least one canard has had a bird impact and survived. IIRC, I saw some pictures of the canard, in which the L.E. was crushed back toward the spar approximately 3". The impact zone was about 6" - 8" wide.

 

I think that the most probable outcome from a strike the size of a bird will be to do this (or somewhat more) damage to the canard, which would then have to be repaired/replaced, and the canard mount points inspected, but I think it's extremely unlikely that the spar/shear web would be compromised.

 

But that's only my $0.02, and we've got one datapoint, at most.

I'm not convinced it was a bird strike, in fact I'd say it wasn't. If a bird hit the winglet it could cause that damage, but I don't see why it would be transmitted to the ailerons & prop.

It's fairly obvious from looking at the pictures that SOMETHING took out the prop, and then one blade of the prop left the engine at about the 5-6 oclock position, just barely hit the trailing edge of the aileron, and continued on to take off the winglet above the rudder.

 

The other prop blade went somewhere else, and didn't hit any part of the plane. While there is certainly some question about what made the propeller break (and it's been discussed to death on the canard-aviators list), there's no question about the facts above. The damage traveled from the center outward, not from the outside inward.

..... Since I will have to apply a 2 part epoxy primer anyway do I have to apply more smooth prime to cover the spots?

Sand off as much of the SP as possible - you don't want it on your plane. If you're going to use an epoxy primer, you'll be fine, as it will encapsulate whatever SP is left.

 

See the COZY and canard-aviators mailing list archives for my opinions on SP and Top Gloss.

Yeah, and Marc Zeitlen will be there too talking about flying across the USA in his Cozy. I wonder if he'll have more to say about working for Scaled?

Nope. Since I don't know anything, I can't say anything :-). They haven't told me what I'll be working on because they don't know yet.

 

I'll be talking about last year's 2.5 week cross country trip, and my adventures on it.

Anyone ever considered experimenting with a 3, 4, 5, or 6 bladed scimatar prop?.... If you read this post please post a reply and let me know what you think, even if its not long thanks...

What is it you hope to achieve?

I thought you still had to have an A&P sign-off on the annual, but the repairman was authorized to do the conditional inspection. ??

For experimental amateur-built aircraft, ANYONE can do ANY work on the plane at ANY time. You could get any old bum off the street and have him/her replace your wing spars, if you were high on crack.

 

The ONLY thing that is legally restricted is the annual conditional inspection, which an A&P (does NOT have to be an IA) can do, or the person with the Repairman's Certificate can do.

....From the alert on the RAF site, there's no repair procedure for this. How can I be sure a bought plane is safe if the area where the corrosion is can't be inspected, or is it always viewable?

The wing corrosion issue listed above is only applicable to Vari-Ez's. The Long-EZE and the COZY III and IV have a completely different wing attach system which does not have the same potential problem.

I think I read the service ceiling for these planes is around 25k feet. Is that right? If so, is a high altitude cert required to fly it or will I be able to operate it with just a private pilot's cert?

At Max. Gross Weight, it's probably closer to 20K ft. At lighter weights, it'll be somewhere between 25K and 30K ft.

 

With the standard Lycoming O-360, you'll never be flying anywhere near these altitudes, because it'll take you forever to get there, and you'll be slower than down low, unless you pick up a hell of a tailwind. If you use a different engine (turbo charged or otherwise), then the Service Ceiling will be different.

 

And no, you don't need any any special certificate to fly that high (other than an Instrument Rating, to be in Class "A" airspace), because the aircraft isn't pressurized.

I'm starting to feel more at ease. These veteran flyers were beginning to make it seem like anyone who flies a homebuilt canard is risking their lives on a construction that's sure to fail.

There are close to 2000 Rutan derivative canard aircraft flying (V.E., L.E., COZY). There has NEVER - let me emphasize this - NEVER been a structural failure of ANY properly built aircraft of these three types. NEVER. In around 2000 instances. Not one documented case. Any time there has been a structural failure (and there have only been a very few), it has been traced to a SEVERE issue with the builder's work.

 

RV's are wonderful aircraft. Cessna's and Pipers are wonderful aircraft. However, those three companies can NOT make the same claim. There HAVE been structural failures of properly build instances of these aircraft.

 

Your acquaintances are severly misinformed and/or deluded.

You will need some help here. Water provides a lot more drag than air, so it's not a good idea to have these touching the water, ever.

You may want to contact the Beriev corporation and tell them that their aircraft will never work. See:

 

http://www.beriev-usa.com/main/index.html

 

One of these was at OSH last year, parked in the North 40, IIRC.

 

This should NOT be taken as an endorsement of the OP's design, however.

 

What I mean is that with a high mounted propulsion source, and the canard (as well as much of the hull) in contact with the water, you will find that you will more likely have a submarine than a seaplane.

Apparently not, if the Be-103 can be believed.

 

 

My senior design project for my undergrad degree was working on a flying boat project..... The model we built worked well.

The fact that a scale model of your final design worked in no way speaks to the viability of a different design.

 

Existence proofs are hard to refute.

 

The Be-103 has some similar characteristics to the OP's design. The problems _I_ see with the OP's design is that the spray from the canard will go right through the prop/engine, while the Be-103 protects the prop/engine by having the prop above the wing. Another problem is that canards are not particularly suited to water ops, since they generally take more "runway" than other configs.

So for all the Defiant builders, they'll have to add additional time on top of the 5,000 hours to build to acquire a multi-engine rating. What's involved with that?

Once you have a PP-SEL, you can get a multi rating in a day or two, for $1500 bucks or less. Hardly a stopper.

True, of course, but the context of my statement was limited to current canards (Long-EZ and Cozy types) and their derivatives (excluding the Wright Flier, etc.).

We're getting far away from the topic, but my point was that the wing configuration of the aircraft is NOT the dominant factor in determining it's glide ratio.

 

Still, your point is well taken and leaves me wanting to see the data, but back to my original point -- I'd rather be 6,000 feet up in a single-engine Long-EZ/Cozy than I would in a Cessna (under any conditions).

Well, sure, but there are any number of standard configuration aircraft that have glide ratios as good as LE/COZY.

 

Look at glider design if what you're interested in is maximum L/D ratios. Rutan designed the Solitaire, but while it flew OK, it was a dud from the standpoint of glider performance. The "stall resistant" design point of the canard configuration does not lend itself to optimizing the drag bucket synchronization of the two lifting surfaces, and a canard configuration aircraft will almost always have a slightly lower L/D max than a similar performance conventional aircraft. There are NO canard configuration competition gliders (at least not any that win :-) ).

 

You win some, you lose some :-).

A benefit of the canard design, compared to a 'conventinal' aircraft, is that ALL wing surfaces contribute lift, resulting in better glide ratios.

As an aeronautical engineer, I can tell you that the fact that both wings are lifting in the "up" direction has almost nothing to do with the glide ratio of the aircraft as a whole. Ask a Vari-Viggen pilot what his glide ratio is :-).

 

Low drag and wing aspect ratio are far more important factors.

 

....Marc, as an engineer yourself you know full well how important this stuff can be. What flight testing has been done?

Not a clue. However, since Ivan Shaw is an aircraft designer, I would THINK that he'd covered those bases. I was told that Mike Bowden's installation was VERY nice and very well thought out, but that he never got the performance out of the Jabiru's that he had expected.

 

As far as your specific questions, you'd have to ask Ivan and/or Mike.

I agree. At least one person has already done it...that twin Suzuki with counterrotating props. It's no small task, though.

You guys are funny. See:

 

http://www.roughriver.org/2001_photos.html

 

about 1/2 way down. It's been done. It works. Mike removed the twin engines and is either in the process of putting a single engine back on his plane or has already done so.

 

IIRC, Ivan Shaw (of Europa fame) built a twin engine Norton Rotary version of a Long-EZ as well.

 

And there have been others.....

.... If you had ailerons there, instead of on the main wing, you would have a very difficult time controlling the plane in even the slightest bank, with unintentional and almost uncontrollable pitching.

You might want to read the "Canard Pusher" newsletters #6, 7, 8 (and maybe a few more). The original VARIEZE had combination elevator/ailerons (Burt called them elevons) on the canard. Testing of this aircraft went reasonably well, and although Burt later changed the design to a more conventional layout, it exhibited none of the "unintentional and almost uncontrollable pitching" that you postulate.

 

For many reasons, a full flying canard or ailerons on the canard isn't a particularly good idea, but "unintentional and almost uncontrollable pitching" isn't one of them.

.... The fact is that any yahoo can sign-up here (or even on your mail list) without too much difficulty. It's not like we'd ever run background checks to verify just how much interest someone really does have in canard aircraft.

Completely untrue. I manually add each requester to the COZY mailing list, and only after they've provided a full address and phone #, as well as some building/flying status. It's WAY too much work for a casual spammer to go through, and gives way too much opportunity for them to get caught. That's certainly possible here, too, but it gives an indication of the fact that these things don't just run themselves (as you well know).

 

How much spam have you seen on the COZY or canard-aviators mailing list? It's been about 8 years since the last time I saw any, I think.