Marc Zeitlin

Sorry. As you well know, you can't prove a negative. Given that all this furor over kerosene started over one posting on a newsgroup years ago that was tracked down as being unfounded and thirdhand (admitted to by the original poster), and that a notable expert on Epoxies gave a long, fact filled explanation of why kerosene isn't a problem, real OR potential, with respect to layups, I find it irresponsible to repeatedly state that there MIGHT be a problem. There isn't. True, but usually the incorrect statements are most often corrected AFTER they're made, so mostly all one has to do is continue reading or paying attention to the conversation. Either that, or the discussion is totally one of opinion, in which case there's no right answer (such as which engine to use). Yep. The potential exists. Worry about the meteorite that might hit you, or the shark that might eat you first, though - they're much more likely. Which one? (Here's your chance). So your recommendation would be that if I have a piece of information that might help someone, I should keep it to myself, if I've made another comment recently about a different subject? Gary Hunter doesn't post here - he'd correct you if he did. I won't apologize for having a good memory, and if people will be led astray by rumor and hearsay, I'll try to correct it. Not at all sure what this reference is to.

You're not going to claim that you don't care about the facts because you've already got an opinion, are you? Burning ANY carbon based fuel will make both carbon DI-oxide and carbon MON-oxide, which is what I believe you were trying to refer to here. Carbon DI-oxide exists in measurable percentages in air, and you'd have a difficult time killing yourself with it. Carbon MON-oxide, on the other hand, is what people commit suicide with in their garages with their car exhaust. None of this has the slightest thing to do with my comment regarding layup problems, however, since layups don't need to breathe. While you may be correct regarding a minuscule amount of unburned kerosene emitted from the burner, no other than Gary Hunter (and if Gary isn't a layup expert, especially with respect to epoxy properties, NO-ONE is) concurs that there is NO EFFECT on layups from using kerosene heaters. THAT was the import of my original response - I did not address the personal safety issue - just the layup one, since that's what Mike mentioned. And with this I have no argument, although I have used both kerosene and propane heaters in my workshop with no problem whatsoever, monitoring the air quality with a CO (Carbon Monoxide) detector.

I'm not sure who told you that, but it's untrue. Had you been reading the messages on the COZY mailing list (to which you belong, but do not contribute, nor apparently read) regarding this subject that were posted in December, 2002 and March, 2003, you'd know that. There has never been a documented instance of kerosene heaters causing any layup or delamination problems, much less a crash or accident. Unfounded rumors and third hand unverified information is useless and misleading. As John pointed out, the COZY mailing list archives are chock full of information regarding shop heating of many different types, although he also erroneously referred to non-existent contamination.

Have you viewed all the performance data at: http://www.cozybuilders.org/performance/ Between the web site and the mailing list archives, you can find what you're looking for.

The license agreement you sign when you purchase the plans explicitly states you are allowed to build "one, and one only" aircraft from these plans. So, the short answer to both questions is "no" - it's neither an ethical dilemma nor legal.

Not that I've ever seen. It's not real complex, though, especially after you've built the airplane and the strakes, so that you see what the fuel system/tanks look like. I'll bet I could build a 60 gallon long range auxiliary tank in less than a week. Basically, you'd cut a bunch of sheet foam to shape so that it would fit into the rear seat area as far back as possible, with the bottom about 8" off the floor to keep it above the fuel line. You'd have some baffles inside to keep the fuel from sloshing around, and a sump area at the bottom with an exit line and a valve. The filler cap would be on the top (duh), and you'd plumb a vent line to the outside world (flexible tubing would suffice). First, you'd glass the inside of the tank, the baffles and the inside of the top (seperately). you'd then glass the top onto the tank and glass the whole exterior. As Mike said, the rear seats are on the CG, for the most part, so that's not much of an issue. More of an issue is the weight, but if you fly solo, even with 60 gallons extra, you're still under gross. With two and and extra 60 gallons, you'd be just over gross. Thanks.

The cost of the foam in a composite aircraft is a minuscule %age of the cost of the aircraft. The foam in the wings is 2-4 lb/ft^3 - light to medium balsa is 7 - 12 lb/ft^3. You'd add a LOT of weight, you wouldn't be able to hot wire it, so good luck getting the shape right, and it would be susceptible to rot. Explain to me again (given that you've already admitted that the glass provides the strength) what an advantage of balsa as a core material might be? :-).

Bill Swears (who will be reachable through both the COZY and canard-aviators mailing lists when he gets out of the hospital) just attempted such a flight in his O-320 powered COZY III. Although he had an engine failure and crashed in the ocean about 100 miles off shore, he was rescued by his own CG unit and is now recovering (no really serious injuries). One wing of the plane was just recovered the other day by a fishing boat. At any rate, a removable auxiliary tank is easily fabricated for placement in the rear seat area, with a hookup into the stock fuel feed line. I've calculated that one could add well over 100 gallons to the 50 - 55 gallons that the stock COZY holds. I have no doubt one could modify a COZY to hold enough fuel to travel 4K - 5K miles - Dick Rutan did it in a L.E. It would also be possible to add fuel cells to the end of the strakes, as Dick did on his L.E. for his and Mike Melville's around the world flight - that could add another 20 gallons or so.

More expensive panel. I only fly VFR, because I'm only rated VFR (yet). The plane is now equipped for IFR, since I just installed a NARCO NAV-122. I have full VFR equipment, one COM, a transponder, Navaid autopilot, electric turn coordinator, handheld GPS, two vacuum gyros, and the new NAV. All steam gages - no EFIS, no electronic gyros, no engine monitors. Couldn't tell you what the panel cost exactly - I'd guess in the $7K range by the time you got through with everything. I bought some new, some used, some EBAY. With respect to operating costs at 100 hours of flying time/yr: For a $50K airplane, assuming no depreciation but no appreciation either (never can tell) and a 8% cost of money (historical appreciation rate of the Dow), it's $4K/yr just to own the thing. So: fixed costs - money cost: $4000 tie down or hangar: $500 - $5000 (depending upon location) annual: $500 - $2000 Total: $5K - 11K That's $50/hr to $110/hr, and you haven't flown any yet. Now, if you assume that the plane will appreciate, this will change substantially, but I don't think that you can rely on that. Obviously, there's a large range of costs here. Carl Denk, who's been flying his O-320 powered COZY III for 10 years or so, figures on $70-80/hr for everything at 70 hr/yr. An auto engine will certainly decrease the operating costs (as will using auto fuel in a Lycoming), but it will also substantially decrease the worth of the aircraft (as witnessed by the few COZY's with auto conversions that have sold). There are a LOT of factors here, and there's no way to predict exactly for anyone what they will be.

Don't build an airplane because you think it's cheaper than a spam-can - it's not. Don't build an airplane because you want a certain kind of airplane or some specific performance. Build an airplane because you can think of nothing (and I mean NOTHING) better to do with your time than build an airplane. NONE of the aircraft you're contemplating are particularly cheap to operate - COZY's run anywhere from ~$35/hr for a subaru powered minamally configured version to ~$80/hr for your standard IFR equipped Lycoming version. Notwithstanding what Nat says, you won't build a Lycoming equipped COZY with a decent panel for less than $50K, and the Velocity's are much more. For the same money, you can get a perfectly decent spam can that's well equipped and be flying immediately, with decent speed and comfort. If you want a homebuilt, but aren't DYING to build, BUY an aircraft - Velocity's and COZY's come up for sale all the time. You get all the advantages of experimentals without the 3 - 10 year build time. Build because you want to build, not because you want to fly. Jigs and templates are by far the cheapest thing you will do on the aircraft - if they add up to $200 total, it's a lot.

Can't help you with the access - I'd check with the administrators. With respect to the roll trim, I find that I trim for climb, then once for "n" hours of cruise, then once in the pattern. If I burn all the fuel in one tank before switching, I'll trim then, too. None of this is difficult to deal with even if trimmed completely in the wrong direction, and if the Navaid is on, I'll never know I'm out of trim. If I were going to install an electric roll trim, the Wright-Hanka system is what I'd use, but I've decided it's not worth the effort at this point. Maybe if I had come across it while I was still building....

Don't count "views" as meaning much - every time ANYONE looks at the thread, including the 14 people who've posted to it, the "view" count increments. If each of the 14 people have viewed it 8 times each (not unreasonable considering all the posts over the past few days) that would account for 112 out of the 191 "views". That's the same thing that was said a year ago when I asked my question regarding the appeal of this forum and was castigated severely for trying to elicit opinions. Do you actually believe that most spam/viruses comes from mailing lists or memberships thereto? Anyone that surfs the web (and is not sophisticated enough to spoof their email address for their browser) is littering the internet with invitations to spam/virus them. If I had to guess, over 95% of spam comes from surfing the web, not from mailing lists. I know many people that are spammed incessantly, and none of them are even members of ONE mailing list. Most viruses come from people you've sent email to, or someone that is peripherally related to people you've sent email to. You'd have to stop sending email altogether to stop being suceptible to viruses. That's an extremely weak argument. Even getting a new address will not help if you ever use it (and not using it sort of negates the utility, no?). You are being as close-minded as the old moderator that you railed against. The new moderator lets just about EVERYTHING through - way more than _I_ would if I were moderating it (which I wouldn't, since I don't believe in moderation). And the old farts that you dis have built VE's, LE's, COZY's, Velocities, Defiants, installed Subaru's, Mazdas, turbocharged engines, EFIS's, fuel systems, instrument panels, retractable landing gear, and forgotten more about canard aircraft than you or I will ever know. The thought that you have nothing to learn from them is laughable. Depends on what "help" means. I used the numbers the forum provides to indicate who's talking and who's listening. I think that the fact that essentially no one (including some that joined earlier and have dropped off) who flies a canard aircraft of any type posts here on a regular basis (the COZY designer included) is a telling piece of information for those who actually want to learn something, rather than just hear themselves talk. John, if you like this medium better than mailing lists, fine - continue to support it and run it, and maybe someday, as you say, it will supplant mailing lists. You were the one that asked for people's $0.02, and I provided mine.

Do you always kneel your plane when filling? Do you never fill your plane AFTER a flight and then park it? Personally, to prevent condensation, I try to have the tanks as full as possible most of the time, which means that I fill them after a flight and while level (or close to it). That means up to 5 or so gallons more per side than filling while kneeling. If I then lower the nose to park, I'll have 10 - 15 gallons above the mid-tank vent line. _I_ have two vent lines per side, per Carl Denk's (oh, wait, he's on the other lists, but not this one) instructions, so I have one vent line at the back of the tank (as dust inquired). I NEVER vent fuel while parked. Also, while climbing at low speed (90 mph, or Vx), the deck angle is such that you'll have many gallons above the vent line - thermal heating can easily push a gallon or so overboard during the climbout, and why should I have to think about switching tanks every few minutes if an easy fix (adding some tubing) can fix the problem? Not hardly, this time.

Well, if you were on the "old farts" (as Mr. Slade calls them) canard-aviators list, you'd have long ago been exposed to the "Wright-Hanka" roll trim system. Go to the mailing list website and click on "files". It's down near the bottom. Simple and nice, if you believe you need electric roll trim.

I know I'll get crap from a few of the regulars here since some of you think I have a vested interest in seeing this forum disappear, but I thought that it might be useful to John and Nick (who do all the work, which I understand only too well) as well as to the regulars what the facts of this forum are. There are 427 registered members. Out of those 427, 133 of them have not visited the forum in over 12 months. Another 106 have not visited in 6 months. Another 51 have not visited in 3 months, and another 50 have not visited in a month, for a total of 340. That leaves 87 members that have visited the forum within the past month, or 137 within the past three. So, you are not communicating to as many people as you think when you post a message or question here. There have been 3510 posts to this forum. 1103 of them have been from the top TWO posters (neither one of which has completed or flown their plane) - almost one third of the posts. 2074 have been from the top 10 posters (none of whom have completed or flown their planes) - 60%. It seems clear from these data that the audience (and information sources) are pretty small. This isn't a bad thing - all communication media start small, by definition. The CCF has only been around for 1.5 years, so the potential for growth is still there. However, in comparison to the canard_aviators mailing list, which has over 1500 members and vibrant discussions with people from all stages of building and flying, many of whom have built/flown multiple planes and have upwards of 10 - 20 years of canard experience, anyone relying solely on the CCF for information sharing is missing a lot. If I were John or Nick, I'd ask myself if the work involved in moving and maintaining a third communication medium with the current stats is worth the effort and time. I ask myself that same question all the time. Flame away.

Norm's estimates (sorry Norm) aren't realistic. The fiberglass/foam/epoxy in total only weigh about 300 - 400 lb for the whole plane. The epoxy weighs maybe 100 lb of that. If you've only got 100 lb. of epoxy in the plane, please explain to me how you're EVER going to save 60 lb. by modifying your peel ply technique. Not gonna happen. Same with using MGS instead of something else. According to Norm's calculations, he'd have used zero epoxy if he had used MGS and modified his peel plying. Huh? Now, if he claims that he'd have saved 5% each on the EPOXY weight, or 10 lb. total, I could maybe believe that, but that's a far cry from 120 lb.

This is certainly true, but a LOT of work. I don't know where you got the idea that composite materials do not fatigue. See: http://www.coe.montana.edu/composites/ Click on "publications", and then #14 for a clear indication of fatigue issues in multiply fiberglass layups. Pay particular attention to page 8. On the other hand, what fatigue has to do with a single static test of wing/spar strength, I certainly can't see. If there's a low cycle fatigue issue with ANY parts in the plane, then there's a design problem, not a fabrication problem. Maybe, but as Burt Rutan showed when static testing the canard, proper mounting and loading is paramount. This is not a trivial pursuit. Lots of things SHOULD be the case. Poor surface prep. can easily lead to filler loss, as could filler thicknesses that are too high. Wrong epoxy, crappy sanding, etc.

This is true for the canard community as a whole, as well as COZY's in particular. It's also true for MANY other aircraft types as well, including tons of kits. Speaking as someone that has not yet built a plane, I don't think that you really have a frame of reference to make such a statement. For the most part, custom COZY parts are single sourced, and as I've said many times before, the quality control of most of the vendors is lousy at best. Featherlite, Aerocad, Brock - these guys would NEVER stay in business in a competitive environment. I can't tell you the # of parts I've received from them that suck, and I've had to rework. With respect to Mr. Skorija's comments (that's "dust" for you CCF folks), I will respectfully disagree strongly with much of it. He's not comparing apples and apples, but apples and oranges, and most of his "data" is just plain wrong. All you have to do is read the "completions" sections of Kitplanes or Sport Aviation to see that hours to completion are nowhere NEAR what dust claims, and 1800 - 2500 hours for a COZY is optimistic, unless you're buying a lot of stuff prefab. RV's are coming off the line at a rate of about 1/day, and they take 1500 hours or so to complete. The only planes that take 4K hours or more are the OSH show winners. Velocities hardly take 18K hours - that statement is absurd on the face of it, as is 9K hours for glasairs. There may be ONE, somewhere, that took that long, but as an average, that's rediculous. There are MANY kitplanes out there from reputable dealers that can be built in 1000 - 3000 hours, and are cost competitive. There's no reason to denigrate other planes (or modes of building) in order to elevate the COZY. Plans-built and Kit-built have different purposes. It depends on each person's goals and operating modes. At 2500 - 3000 hours for the COZY, it's hardly a "fast-build" plane. With respect to factual claims of performance, most COZY's perform slightly worse than Nat's claims - I've never heard of any doing better on the same power. I've also never heard of one coming in at his claimed weight - at 1150 lb (100 lb over Nat's empty weight), my plane is one of the lighter ones I've seen. Geez.

See: http://www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list/topics95/peel_ply.txt and http://www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list/topics96/peel_ply.txt For discussions of this topic from both sides.

I'm sure I'll get crapped on for saying this, but you REALLY need to ask this question on the canard-aviators mailing list, where there are hundreds of V.E. builders/flyers and experts in these types of subjects and questions. Personally, as an engineer, the fact that there are no tolerances in any of the Rutan or Rutan derivative plans that I've ever seen is a major problem, but that's how it is.

Right seat is the right answer. Put the instruments on the right - there's nothing anywhere that says the pilot has to be on the left. IIRC, there's at least one COZY that's flying with this configuration. With respect to a center stick, you'd have to figure it all out for yourself, and ALL the controls would have to be completely re-engineered. It's a BIG job.

So I've been following this discussion and have to speak up. You guys are talking about heating your airplane with electricity, coming from the alternator. The largest alternator you'll be able to install is about a 120 Amp, and most of the ones installed on COZY aircraft are 40 - 60 Amp. This gives you 720 Watts of heat IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS TURNED ON. 720 watts (or 600 watts, as delivered by Bill Theeringer's hair dryer derived electric auxiliary heater) will NOT heat a COZY in the winter. It will be (and Bill advertises it as) a purely auxiliary heater to complement the stock system and provide localized heating to the foot area. Bill's heater weighs a pound or two, can be mounted anywhere, needs no structural changes, and provides heat where you need it. The "radiant floor heating" idea using electricity is, to put it mildly, extremely silly. It will weigh a ton, be difficult to install, require many mods to the structure and construction, and worst of all, not work. Chuckthedog's heated suit is a far more intelligent use of electricity for primary heating purposes, although it requires that everyone in the plane wear special clothing. There are many far more reasonable methods of providing copious heat to the cabin - electric space heating is about the worst method you could begin to contemplate. Please, people, try to think about the physics and thermodynamics of a situation before getting into proposed solution spaces - what's the problem, and what KIND of solutions might work efficiently?

As one who has the stock Brock hand crank system and plans to install the Wilhelmson system sometime this summer (if $$ appears), this unit seems to have all the disadvantages of an electric system without any of the advantages. It does NOT remove the requirement to lift the aircraft using brute strength, meaning your back will pay. All it does is remove the necessity to crank the handle, which is, by far, the easiest part of raising/lowering the gear. I have no clue why anyone would purchase this system.

I've seen one of these in a homebuilt - they're VERY nice. Great, big screen, all the standard features, the resolution is terrific. The guy that had it loved it. It's NOT IFR, by definition, since it's a handheld/portable. With 4 days to go, already over $1200, it won't go for much less than new, however.

My empty weight is 1155 lbs. From what I remember seeing, most are between 1100 lb. and 1200 lb. - anything more than that is because someone is building a show plane, or is just really sloppy. That's mostly what I'll be using it for as well, and it holds a LOT of stuff in the back. Can't happen. Baggage is VERY light in comparison with people. There's no way I could get 400 lb. of luggage into the rear seats. Yeah, and if all that stuff weighed 120 lb., it was a lot. I put max. gross at 2155 lbs. - 1000 lb. over my original empty weight of 1155 lb. After I add wheel pants, electrical nose lift, etc., the weight will rise about 20 lb., but it'll drop 10 lb. when I replace the Concorde battery with an Odyssey battery. With full fuel (58 gal. in my plane), or about 350 lb, I've got 650 lb. of payload. Subtract my 160 lb, and there's 490 lb. of people and stuff I can take for a 5 hour flight, with IFR reserves.