Marc Zeitlin

There are numerous L.E.'s flying in the UK.

Amazing. The FAA FSDO up here did the inspection and all the paperwork for free. My tax dollars at work, I guess. For that much money, you should truck the plane up here to MA, have it inspected, and then truck it back. As Chris said, I've always heard #'s in the $300 - $400 range.....

I remove my ballast from the nose and store it under the rear seat (right on the CG) when it's not in use. It's always with me.

There are a few people (Harry Manvel among them) that hang out on the canard-aviators mailing list that are flying or building Defiants. Other than flying next to Harry on the trip from SQF to MQI the day before the Airventure Cup race, and looking over his plane, I know virtually nothing about the Defiant (other than it's slower than a COZY :-) ). I don't believe there are any Defiant builders/flyers on this forum. Your best bet is to contact people that have them.

Yup, but I'll tell you, with the large, plastic vents and the stock NACA side ducts, I can just about blow myself through the front seatback with the airflow by the time I get up to flying speed. If there were any more air coming in, everything in the cabin would be floating all over the place. I did move my vents to a point directly behind the elevators, as it lined up with my vent location better, but I don't think that made much of a difference in pressure recovery.

FAR 67.307 (a)(3) specifically prohibits those with clinically diagnosed bipolar disorder from getting a 3rd class medical. How good an idea do you think it is to lie to a federal agency? You can let anyone you want fly your plane, as long as a pilot is in it at the time. As Mike said, it certainly can't hurt to have her take the ground school and flight training as well for emergency purposes. And for Jim Sower, (who should know better) there's no such thing as a pilot's "license" - it's a "certificate" :-). And no, you don't need a medical for dual or ground school. Also, it is possible to get a pilot certificate without any medical certificate - glider and motorglider certificates do not need medicals.

Vne for the COZY MKIV is 220 mph IAS, per the Owners Manual and published information (stated as "Max. Speed", usually). Vne is not dependent upon builder - it's 220 mph, period, unless the builder wants to test at higher speeds (and is then completely on his own).

Jack's unit has the spring internally - it's just not visible. What makes you think it's not as robust?

In the short term, it's more work. If people become educated as to the information sources available to them, then in the long term it's less work. Listen - Mike is right, in a couple of senses. First, people managed to build these planes before the internet existed, and they had NO "builder support networks" other than the RAF or Nat, and maybe the quarterly paper CSA newsletter. Secondly, even if ALL you had in front of you was the plans, and nothing else, you could build a perfectly good plane, either reading ahead or just doing whatever the next paragraph said to do. I did exactly that with the Q2 I built - I talked to the factory twice, and no-one else ever during the 4 year build. I'm a read-ahead kind of guy - I bought my plans in late 1994, and spent approximately 100 hours reading them and the newsletters over and over and over and over and over again before I started building. Mike is the opposite - he does what the next paragraph says, and that works for him - that's great. It's not a question of "lazy". You sound to be more like me from a preparation standpoint than like Mike - if that's the case, then I just think that you haven't quite gotten your head around just how much work this project is, both from a mental and physical standpoint. If nothing else, when you ask a question, TELL people that you've searched the plans / newsletters / on-line data for the information that you're asking for, so that they KNOW that you're not asking for them to do YOUR work for you - then they'll be more than happy to help out. All of this goes for all the new builders out there, obviously - not just Joseph.

Two of the three information sources I pointed you to are paper and are sitting on your desk/table. The FAQ and archives are hardly internet searches - I gave you the URL's, all you have to do was click on them and read. The answers to these questions might be interesting to others - why limit the info? The questions aren't childish, they're just easily available to you without making anyone else do any work - I think part of the responsibility of mail list/forum users when on an information search is to ensure that they're not using others to do their work for them, and have at least done a cursory look at available information. I was pointing you toward useful information sources, both for your current (and future) questions. Not the first time I've heard that, and I will endeavor to minimize the appearance of arrogance. I apologize, since that was not my intent. The COZY plans are about the best you'll find on the market - Burt and Nat did a GREAT job. That's not to say they can't be improved - they can - but reading them through a couple of times before you start building can only help you in understanding what everything is and how it goes together. The newsletters are mostly fluff, but the "supplier" and "mandatory changes" sections are very useful. Yes.

1) Read Chapter 13 (In fact, all your questions regarding materials and parts will be answered by reading the plans) 2) See the COZY newsletters you received when you purchased the plans, or see: http://www.cozybuilders.org/newsletters/ There are other noselift suppliers as well that you can find by judicious searching of CSA newsletters or the COZY archives, but these are the two biggies. 3) Well, you didn't ask three questions here, but you've asked a lot of others that can be answered by: Read the COZY builders FAQ and archives, at: http://www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list/ Give a man a fish.... Teach a man to fish.... etc.

Also see: http://x-jets.com/products3.html

Respect or not, you're never gonna see my "credendtials", so don't mention them again. :-). Credentials, however are public info. At any rate, since Mike saw fit to name the thread after me, it only seems right that I should tell you how to say it. Usually, the pronunciation isn't the problem, it's the spelling - when this happens, I tell them it's spelled "S - M - I - T - H", - they're all silent, except for the "M", which is pronounced "Zeitlin". Of course, that doesn't work on-line, since all you can see is the "Zeitlin", and you can't hear the pronunciation, so I'll just have to tell you. It's Zeit (as in "bite") lin (as in "in"). Long "i". Howzzat?

I suggest that everyone wondering about scales and pumps read the following web pages on the difference between "accuracy" and "precision". There seems to be some confusion regarding the definitions of these terms with respect to the needs we have when mixing epoxy. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/distance/sci122/SciLab/L5/accprec.html http://www.wl.k12.in.us/es/concepts/shosys25.htm When using a scale, we care about accuracy and precision, so that we get the appropriate mixing ratios - we don't really care about precision alone, because whether I mix 8.1 OZ of epoxy or 8.2 OZ or epoxy is meaningless. With a pump, the accuracy of the RATIO is important, but the accuracy of the weight of each pump is meaningless. Precision doesn't factor in, because we're not measuring anything.

Let's assume that the smallest batch of epoxy you'd ever like to mix is on the order of 1 OZ or so - I think that's pretty close to one pump from my pump. Maybe it's smaller, but let's use that for sake of argument. If 1/3 of the volume is hardener, that leaves us with 1/3 OZ of hardener (approximately). 1 OZ = 28.6 gm, so 1/3 OZ ~= 9.5 gm. If the resolution (to say nothing of the accuracy) of your scale is 2 gm, then the best you can do is about 22% error in the measuring of your hardener. If you're 11% off in the measuring of your resin in the other direction (2/3 of the volume), then you're approximately 33% off in the ratio in the worst case in small batches. There's certainly some leeway in mixing epoxy - it doesn't have to be perfect, but 33% off is not something I'd build a plane with. I have a pump - I wouldn't be without it.

The concept of "structural" involves two basic ideas - strength and stiffness. While you are certainly correct that the IP (and, in fact, almost ALL the bulkheads) are very lightly loaded in normal use, and therefore the stresses are low and the strength requirements are also low, there's stiffness to be considered. The fuselage, especially of the COZY, is an open "C" shape (opening "up"), and has very little intrinsic torsional stiffness. The bulkheads provide most of the torsional resistance to "racking" of the fuselage, and this is important to maintain the relative positions and angles of the canard and main wing. That being said, wrt replacing the IP with something else, as long as the Aluminum (or whatever) seperate IP piece is bolted to the fuselage in such a way that it CANNOT move wrt the fuselage under any loading, it will fullfill it's job and stiffen the fuselage. Just ensure that the mounting system (bolts, pins, etc.) is reinforced at the mounting points and that there's no slop.

Well, it's not patronizing, because it's not correct :-). A 3 dB difference is twice the acoustic POWER, but NOT twice the "loudness", or perceived noise level. If you played two noises, one 3 dB louder than the other, right after one another, you'd probably be able to say which one was louder than the other, but it wouldn't bowl you over with the difference. If you played them 1/2 hour apart, you would not be able to tell which was louder. Your ear perceives things logarithmically (approximately), so even twice the acoustic power is not always perceivable. Now, a 6 dB difference WILL be noticable. At any rate, the #'s shown here are not substantially different from the ones indicated in No4's links (no problem at all with links - they're just pointers to the original information). The 99dB of the Lancair and the 96 dB of the COZY wouldn't really be noticeably different, and the 96 dB of the COZY and the 93.5 dB of the C-150 (from the link) wouldn't be that different either. Personally, I can't tell any major difference between the C-172's, Katanas and Warriors that I used to fly and the COZY. I ALWAYS use an ANR headset - wouldn't fly without one. ALL of these airplanes are way too loud to be flown in without hearing protection, and you'll NEVER get the sound level below that which you get with ANR headphones any other way.

In order to achieve full utility, you will have to ensure that all information is provided upon signup (address, phone #, real name, etc.), which I believe the software can ensure, but then you will also have to ensure that this information is only available to members of the forum, so that guests cannot obtain it. I have no idea if the software has that ability to restrict access.....

This is something that has bothered me about the forum for a long time, and has been mentioned a number of times in other posts by many others. On the other hand, when you join the COZY mailing list, one of the things that you get is a database of all the builders/flyers on the mailing list, and their addresses/phone #'s, specifically so that you can contact people near you (or far away from you if you're away from home).

There's "chrome" cylinders, and chrome on the rocker covers. They're two different things - I think Chuck is referring to the first. I'm no engine expert, but it's possible (and I've heard A&P's mention) that cylinders that have had the barrels chromed may run hotter during break in than unchromed cylinders, and this seems to match with what Chuck has heard. On the other hand, it's __extremely__ difficult for me to believe that any appreciable heat is dissapated through the rocker covers, and that any coating, be it paint, chrome, or anything else might have any measurable effect on CHT's. Not to mention that about 1/2 of the show planes that you see at OSH have chromed rocker covers. They look great.

These are two very different questions. I think it would be an excellent idea. Not at all. Since there are two questions here, the Poll is misleading. I'd definitely vote FOR a chat room, however.

LP is not a contributing member of the COZY mailing list. In 9 years of administering the COZY list, only two people have been removed involuntarily, and those were ONLY for being disrespectful to other members multiple times, after being warned. Hmmm. Here's your post from December 3, 2003, in the "MGS Epoxy fumes - flamable?" thread: I guess I misinterpreted this diatribe as a request to be removed from the useless and information free COZY mailing list. If I misunderstood you, and you'd like to be reinstated, just send me an email and I'll be happy to add you back in. My bad.

You are incorrect. The COZY mailing list is NOT open to the public. Merely because something is posted to a mailing list does not automatically put it in the public domain, your opinion notwithstanding. If you'd like to reference some legal opinion refuting this, please do. Since I'm one of the four admins here, I have long since found your email address. Since I've never contacted you in any way other than our interactions on this forum, how have I victimized or bullied you?

And I feel the same way, but not everyone does. Since permission was not asked, the safe thing to do is not post it until permission IS granted, and not post it if it's not granted. Nope. It's not OK to take anything off this list and post it anywhere else, without the writer's permission, either. Goes both ways. It's just common courtesy. I agree - cross pollination and information sharing is great. __IF__ the original writer agrees to it. You know, I'm sure I could go online, and for anywhere between $0 and $20, find out who you are, where you live, your bank account balances, whether you're married or divorced, what kind of car you drive, and how you feel about airplanes. I could then post that information here, or anywhere else, since it was "public domain", and you'd be OK with that, right? No, I thought not, and I would not do such a thing, because it would upset you, and rightly so. All I ask for is the courtesy of asking the original writer for permission to post their writing somewhere other than they originally put it. I really don't think that's an onerous request. Of that I've no doubt. The wife flogging thing sounded, ummmm, interesting, if you take some pictures.......

Joe, it is extremely inappropriate to take a posting from one mailing list/forum and quote it, essentially in it's entirety, in another mailing list/forum. This has been discussed/requested here previously - must have been before you joined. If the writer of what you quoted had wanted the statement to appear here, s/he'd have put it here. If you want to reference the statement and paraphrase, that's a different story, but please, do NOT post messages from other mailing lists here without the original writer's permission, and at least attribution. Thanks.