Marc Zeitlin

Before you guys get too lost in this, maybe you ought to do some calculations to figure out how much POWER is needed to melt ice electrically over the many square feet of wing area, while moving at 100 - 200 mph through freezing rain. There is some work being done on pulsed systems - do a Google search on: "Electro Expulsive Separation System" and "Ice Management Systems" For some more info, but you're still looking at a LOT of power. I believe that: http://www.airplanedeice.com/home.php these folks are the successor to IMS - they're talking about 100-150 Amp alternators at 50-80V. Plus, you couldn't bury the system under the glass - it has to be able to move.

I think as long as the buyer had the builder's log, so that he could prove that the aircraft was built for as Ex. Am-Built, then he'd be set to get it re-registered. He wouldn't need the original certification, as long as the aircraft has been DE-registered. It would be just like a brand new inspection - all you'd have to do is tell the inspector that someone else built the plane, and you aren't going to bother applying for the Repairman's certificate. It's the plane that gets the airworthiness certificate - not the builder. Waiter - YOU know that! :-). As you said, it can't hurt to talk to the FSDO (as long as you don't give your name until they tell you what you want to hear :-) ). As far as the hold-harmless agreements go, they do help, but they're not panacea's. You cannot sign away someone ELSE's right to sue (like your bereaved significant other :-) ).

While possibly theoretically true, no homebuilder has ever lost a lawsuit because of a homebuilt aircraft they have sold, to my knowledge. This is a minuscule risk. That's just silly. Look at all the homebuilts that are sold left and right on a regular basis, and then reread my above statement. I'll agree with that - you should get a sizable discount. Huh? The plane is built, and already was certificated in the Experimental, Amateur Built category. All you need to show for re-registration is that it was built under the Experimental, Amateur Built rules (which it was, and which the FAA agreed to once, since it was already registered once). You can do this by showing the inspector the original builder's log and documents, just as was done before. YOU won't get the repairman's certificate, since you didn't build it, but that's hardly a big deal.

It's one of many. Vortex generators are another. If it works, then the answer is yes, and there are numerous folks who have done the same.

Not that I'm aware of. The V.E., L.E., COZY, Velocity, Berkut, E-Racer, etc. all have the fuel tanks within a couple inches of the CG range (which is always AHEAD of the aircraft Center of Lift). As it turns out, the rear seat passengers are ALSO right about on the CG range, so that fuel and rear seat passengers tends not to affect CG position much, if at all. Full fuel to empty in my COZY is about a 1/2" change in CG position. The one thing that DOES affect CG position greatly is front seat weight, and in a COZY (or E-Racer, or Velocity), having 2 folks in front can require moving some ballast from the nose to the rear.

The phone is the best way to contact FL. They don't use email much.

Actually, Wayne, that's what I thought too, but SOME of the WEST epoxies ARE approved. According to Newsletter 56, the West 105 epoxy with the 209 extra slow hardener is approved for structures, along with the Proset 125/229. I THOUGHT that I had read somewhere that the WEST 206 hardener was OK too, but don't take my word for it, because I can't find the reference.

I thought that I had corrected my incorrect statement previously, but that must have been in another thread. SOME of the West System epoxies are acceptable - they are listed in the COZY newsletters as to which ones are and which are not.

I figured that would get a response out of you :-). I qualify the contents because it's a fact, and if Bill want to get a cross-section of user's responses, he's not going to get it here (or at the other canard web forum). I pointed out two places where he CAN get it. If I had merely given him MY information, he'd have one data point, and no indication about where to get more. When there are web pages with information that people seek, I point those out. When there are mailing lists with information that people seek, I point those out. When there are people to speak to with information that people seek, I point those out. When the information sources become more diverse, and include the web fora, I'll be happy to point them ALL out.

First, I have the Navaid Autopilot installed in my COZY MKIV. I don't know what works "best" for servo placement, but I've got mine mounted on the firewall, to the right of the engine looking forward, just above the cross pushrod between the belcranks. Works fine. Second, there are very few canard flyers here - you'd get a lot better response to your question on the canard-aviators (and COZY) mailing list(s). There are hundreds of flying canarders on those lists, many of whom have Navaid/Trio autopilots. In fact, the principals of Trio (Jerry Hansen, for one) flies a canard and hangs out on the canard-aviators list. He's a very good guy.

Where in MA are you? I live in Acton, and keep my COZY MKIV at Fitchburg. Most get a lot of talking to, a couple of rides in the back, and then give it a go. It's not THAT hard. However, I've had requests from L.E. folks to consider giving checkrides to new L.E. pilots, as I do to new COZY pilots. Drop me an email and maybe we can work something out.

Steve, you have never requested membership in the COZY mailing list - that's why you've never received anything.

It will depend upon how much you weigh, how much your passenger weighs, and where you determine to place your empty CG. I weigh 150 dripping wet, and if I want to fly solo, I need 55 lb. of lead in the nose. This allows me the flexibility to take front seat passengers up to 300 lb. If I set my plane up so that I didn't need any front seat ballast, I would only be able to take passengers that weighed up to 200 lb. or so. When I fly with anyone that weighs more than ~100 lb. in the front seat, I remove the ballast and store it in the back. You can load the rear seats with any amount of weight you want (without overloading the aircraft) without having to move any ballast - the rear seats are just about on the CG. There's no such thing as a factory. Support comes from a few sources - first, Nat Puffer (although the company has been sold to Aircraft Spruce). Secondly, the COZY newsletter. Thirdly, and most actively, the COZY email mailing list (see my signature below for URL). Fourth, the canard-aviators mailing list and the CSA newsletter. Nat can be, how to say, curmudgeonly at times, but between all the info sources, you will be buried in answers before you can shake a stick. All these things are available from both the RV-10 and the COZY. Both will be comfortable and fast (the RV a bit more roomy, and the COZY a bit faster). Both will have good range, with the COZY getting the nod here, too. Easy and fun is a wash, depending upon your definitions of easy and fun. Safe, the same - both are great planes. You can work on any homebuilt - hell, you built it, you can work on it. All the rest of your desires are pretty generic, and can be obtained from many different designs. The COZY will cost a bit less both to build and to operate than other 4-seaters, due to it being plans built rather than kit built, and due to it having a smaller engine than the RV-10 and some other 4-seaters. The COZY plans are very good, and with the support network that's available, even your monkey could build the plane :-). Eminently doable - been done by many (including me) before.

Hmmm. Must be the heater you've got. I built two planes using diesel fuel in my 30K BTU kerosene heater and never had any soot or smoke at all, nor any residue on any parts.

What makes you say that? And what evidence do you have to back it up?

According to the spec sheet on the web, the minimum temp for operation is 62F. However, this does look like a nice unit, for what it does. Probably due to the coal in the area. Electricity in the N.E. costs ~$0.14/KWH, or about 3 times what you pay. I got a $35 Mr. Heater for my 20 lb. propane tank. I can heat my garage to 75 degrees for the weekend on a $10 fill. It would take a lot of weekends to make it worthwhile to buy a $500 heat pump, even at your electricity prices - at mine, there's no way it's cost effective.

The speed canard is like a fat Vari-EZ. There are a few flying in the USA. They're very comfortable, but slow and not as maneuverable, according to those that have flown them. They're WAY overpriced, from the asking price of the one in the US that was for sale last year. They were certified aircraft - not kits or from plans.

Do you believe that the failure rate (during normal flight, not during the actuation mode) of this "safety feature" that would require all sorts of sensing systems, motors, actuators, pivots, etc. would be lower than the failure rate of keeping your CG in the approved range, or even if you made a large enough mistake so that your CG was out of range, lower than the failure rate of NOT allowing your minimum speed to drop below about 60 kts? Again, there has NEVER been a deep stall of a COZY aircraft with the CG in the approved range. You're REQUIRED by the FAR's (at least in the USA) to do a W&B calc before every flight, so that you know where your CG is (not to mention that it's smart to do so). Just in case what? Lowering the canard AOA with respect to the main wing will allow you to have a lower elevator position, but it will have minimal effect if any on the flutter susceptibility. Not to mention that it will decrease the stability of the aircraft. Now you're back to your redundant computer controls......

The airfoils used on the COZY are completely wrong for inverted flight. Something more closely resembling a symmetrical airfoil would be required, and that would screw up the high speed cruise capability of the plane, as well as the current aerodynamic balance between the canard and main wing. Bingo. Why would you assume that? What makes you think that this doesn't match with reality? From all the testing that has been done on L.E.'s and COZY's, no aircraft that was properly built and had the CG in the correct range has ever been deep stalled, or has gotten into an unrecoverable stall. See above - you'd have to completely redesign the whole plane. Not that that's impossible, but it wouldn't be a COZY. They are and it is. The COZY is capable of any positive G maneuver. I know folks that loop and roll theirs. Whatever attitude you end up in, due to whatever cause, is recoverable if your CG is within range. I'm not sure why you believe it's not. P.S. - please stop putting carriage returns in your messages except at the end of paragraphs - the computer will insert them where it needs them - it needlessly complicates responding to your messages.

Even Jim Weir has long since decided (after some analysis) that this is an old wive's tale at best, and there is NO evidence that normal transponder energies can be dangerous. My antenna is up in the nose in front of the rudder pedals, facing downward. Works great. I used 1/32" aluminum as the ground plane.

Well, who and where are you? I'm based at FIT. And MA hasn't been close to "Taxachusetts" for about 20 years. The state ranks about 30th out of 50 in taxes paid per capita.

The rest of the speeds are pretty close, but as you should have noticed from the long discussions on the mailing list, this one is WAY too slow. 52 Kt is about 60 mph, and I don't know ANY COZY that can lift the nose at 52 Kt (plus there's no reason to do so, since you can't fly under approximately 60 - 70 Kt (depending upon weight and CG) anyway. I rotate at about 80 - 85 mph (70 - 74 Kt), and many folks rotate 10 - 15 Kt. higher than that.

That is an absurd claim. I fly my COZY MKIV into 3000 ft. runways that are 40 ft. wide with a 15 Kt. crosswind all the time, and have 500-1000 ft. to spare, both on takeoff and landing. It's hard to believe that all runways in Finland are shorter than 2000 ft. and narrower than 40 ft. - it would be very difficult to get scheduled airline flights into fields that small. Either that guy was pulling your leg (joking with you), or he's a terrible pilot.

Not at all. I gave a ride to a guy yesterday (Sunday) who had never flown anything other than MS Flight Simulator. He was able to control the plane for 15 minutes, no problem, without my touching the stick or even giving him much in the way of instruction other than "go there", "don't hit that", and "get back up to 3000 ft.". No, and I suppose, yes. I'd go back to the source of your models and find out what versions of X-plane they're compatible with.

When you joined the COZY mailing list on September 5th of this year, you were sent a package of three files - one was a mailing list charter, one was an introduction, and one was the mailing list database, in CSV format for importation to a spreadsheet. If you didn't receive these, let me know VIA EMAIL and I'll resend them to you. Everyone gets these when they join. EVERYONE on the mailing list has access to this information - there is no "elite".