marbleturtle

At Oshkosh, I attended 2 of the Atkins rotary forums. At one point, Mr. Atkins mentioned he was running with an IVO prop and half the room moaned. Then I just happened to walk by the IVO prop booth. While I was playing with the display, the IVO rep at the booth mentioned that the previous "problems" had been resolved. Anyone know the details? How about whether or not improvements have been made? Just curious...

Well... I did fall under the category of not wanting gear based on the common arguments expressed earlier. But after reading Phil's site and a few others, I am convinced that there are real benefits to retractable gear. But the benefits are only evident when the aircraft as a whole is set up to take advantage of it. Like when you upgrade to a higher horsepower engine but keep the propeller that was optimized for the lower horsepower... you won't see an increase in speed. Its the same with retracts. If you don't adjust your prop to work against less drag (similar to adding power), the aircraft will not see an increase in speed. If you put a Ferrari body on a truck chassis... it will still only top out at 100mph even if the horsepower is the same. This brings me back to the question I had before. The only thing I've heard or read that makes me re-think the idea of retractable gear is what Nat had to say. He made a remark in reference to epoxy under the heat of the Sun and whether or not it softened at high temperatures and distorted the wing. He said that the only case he knew of wing distortion was a dragonfly that had the wheels at the outer edge of the lower wing. He also went on to say that wheels on the outer edge of the wing put the sunny side of the wing in compression. Apparently when the wing is in tension, if the epoxy does soften, the glass fibers stay straight because they are being pulled straight. Under compression, the fibers are being bunched together and could theoretically malform. After considering it more, since the infinity retracts are attatched to the spar (not the far tips of the wing), I believe that the top of the wing on the Cozy would still be under tension out from the spar, not compression. The top layer of the spar would be under compression, but not exposed to the same heat that the top of the wing would be. I wanted to know if anyone else has considered / researched the possibility. I still might not do the retracts due to the net expense difference of $3000, but I'm certainly leaning toward it. As for the rotary engine, the turbo 13B or 20B is a given for me. No way I'm using anything else. As for delivery problems, JD did say it took 6 months longer for a subcontractor to do the work he needed, but he said he is now back up to speed. Have you ordered a set yet? How far along are you? About the SQ2000... is KLS still in business?

Oh Clifford... *sigh Those are tired old arguments. I'll save a little time and space by just directing you to: http://www.geocities.com/plmjohnson/retractable_gear.htm He does a good job of reviewing common misconceptions about retractable gear, specifically directed toward the Cozy. You might even check out... http://www.infinityaerospace.com (although this site would obviously be pro-retractable) And its not the "cool" factor since not I nor anyone else would be able to see the plane with the wheels retracted. Its simply a matter of common sense if you examine the number of high performance aircraft that use retractable gear. (I'm talking rear gear for the Cozy since the nose gear is already retractable... don't forget to put the nose gear down!) It would appear that the positives outweigh the negatives. I think the benefits of higher payload, longer range, higher speed, added safety (gear up emergency off field landing is safer than flipping over the main gear) are worth the extra expense.

Does anyone remember what Nat said at the Oshkosh Cozy Dinner about a plane that had warped wings because it was sitting in the sun and the epoxy softened? I think it was in reference to a dragonfly where the wheels were on the tip of the bottom wing and the wing was in compression... that it wouldn't happen to a cozy because its wheels are mounted to the fuselage and the wing tops are in tension while on the ground. Just curious. Maybe I should go with the higher temp MGS epoxy. I am thinking about retracts, which mount the wheels to the wings. This would put the top of the spar and strakes in compression, but the wings would still be in tension... I think. Any thoughts?

My wife always has that "eyes glazed over" look when I talk about the plane. I guess she'll get more excited when she sits in the fuselage with me and makes airplane noises.

Have you heard of anyone running pvc conduit pipes down each side of the floor for extra plumbing space? Someone just sent me that idea but I haven't seen it implemented anywhere. Also John, in the picture I've got my left shoulder against the seatback and my right shoulder forward at an angle. When I tried my shoulders square against the back is when I estimated 3". I can fit as is... but I'd be a little squozen. Its the same thing I would have to put up with if I bought a Mooney. But I figure, If I'm gonna build the thing from scratch, why not have it fit comfortably if the changes are minor. (I know, there are exponential forces involved with frontal area and aerodynamics...) I'll just blame it on my wife... yeah... she wants the extra space. And to steal the immortal words of John, "what the lady wants, the lady gets." My wife wants air conditioning too! Should have never let her read John's web site.

ah... positive re-inforcement. Ya know, that just might work.

I thought I was too wide in the middle... turns out I'm too wide up top.

... and a whip! Hey dust! How do you keep slaves in line without a whip?!?!?!

I talked to JD at Infinity Aerospace over the weekend. He said that the Roberts' King Kozy was sold after the company he worked for shut down. Apparently he took over some customer requests and didn't have the time to work on it and simply bought a production plane. I've tried to track it down... the last I heard it was somewhere in Alabama. I for one would definately like to see it if anyone has more information. I'm thinking of going 6" wider all the way back. I think some of the prop blockage will be averted by using a rotary which does not require the bulge in the rear fairings. My first concern was my weight and height. I actually fit fine from the shoulders down. Everything was comfortable. But at 6'0" with wide shoulders, I couldn't sit with my shoulders back or get a good angle on the control stick. I don't think adding 3" on each side will change the dynamics in an extreme fashion. But I do plan on watching weight and balance closely and taking extra precautions during flight testing. Nat made the Long-EZ wider creating the Cozy IV... I think others continuing the process in small increments is just a natural progression of the design.

Well... I'm pretty sure I'll need the following just to get started. 60 gallon air tank (any larger requires 220 volt outlet) with grinder, sander, blower, and framing nail gun... Laser level, smart level, tig welder, 10' band saw, infra-red thermometer, table saw, back up generator, epoxy pump, backup expoxy pump, electric scissors, mini fridge that works (for drinks), mini fridge that doesn't work (for epoxy storage), 35" plasma computer monitor, halogen track lighting, bobcat 682, cork thumbtack board, assorted markers, Xacto knife, small file cabinet, portable heater... is that everything? Oh... and a hammer.

Actually I played around with a few ideas... everything from twin motorcycle engines running twin ducted fans at 9000 RPM (no PSRU!) to going wider with the fuselage. The ideas that I am still seriously considering: Making the fuselage 4" or 6" wider Glass cockpit with 2 removable displays/laptops instead of guages Infinity Retractable rear gear 13B or 20B Rotary engine (@#%@#$!!! I didn't have the money in time to buy Greg Richter's rotary engine) Air Conditioning / Defog (Thanks to John Slade for making me a believer!) Discarded ideas: VTOL - (we were promised flying cars by now!) - after I get the Cozy built I think I'll just build a single seat helicopter kit for those hairy traffic days on my 164 mile commute. Ducted Fans - maximum speed seems to be 200mph. I would prefer a little higher speed. I'm watching Greg Richters progress with his new turbine engine and airframe reinforcements. He thinks he can safely get up well over 300mph like the Berkut. I think I can comfortably get up to 240-250mph with retracts, 240HP, and clean wheel well sealing. We'll see. Six Seater - you never know when you may want to have more children. How big would THAT canard have to be?!?!?! In the mean time I'm dealing with less difficult questions, like what type of Epoxy to use and how much is it going to cost me to get someone to bulldoze all the junk out of my garage? But then I see something like this and go... hmmm... I wonder. http://www.ez.org/shockwave.htm

This looks pretty straight to me...

Hey... before you get too carried away at my expense thinking I've changed my ways... I'm still thinking about widening this sucker by 6 inches, and the new 220HP Honda outboard boat engine is looking pretty good to me! Now if I can just figure out how to build retractable pontoons...

I've seen white, yellow, light blue... does anyone know if silver or if a metallic based white (ie: pearl white) stays as cool or cooler than white? I know the metal surface of my silver car seems to stay cooler than the white surface of my wife's van... although this is totally unscientific. I would like to do something a little different like pearl white.

oh well... I thought it would be a long shot. I've noticed a few parts come up for sale where the builder was not able to continue (or even start in some cases) and thought I could find a few things. Or maybe one nicely cared for where the owner was not quite so attatched!

I was curious to see if anyone who was finished building had an epoxy pump (in good condition!) that they wanted to sell. Thanks.

Nat will continue to sell plans until January. He also mentioned at the Cozy dinner that he is aware of previous problems between Cozy builders and A.S.& S. He seems comfortable with the internal changes going on at A.S.& S. and feels that service will be better. I don't see how anyone though could prevent Wick's from selling the raw materials we need. The biggest question I have, I didn't think of until the drive home from the show... what about the newsletter?

We all went through this phase of deciding what we wanted. I spent 8 months looking at everything I could get information about before buying the plans 2 weeks ago. The Lancair IV is probably still my favorite. Watching that turbo-prop rip across the flight line at the Oshkosh faster than the P-51's was a sight to behold. But even if I flew somewhere once a week, I couldn't justify spending that kind of money when it would be cheaper to fly commercially first class and avoid what I hate about flying commercially. I like the Velocity. The amount of room you get is nice and there are quite a few very nice examples flying around. There are also a few finished aircraft available for sale because a number of builders want to fund their new Lancair project. (I met two at the show.) My father is thinking about buying one. I ruled out the Velocity because of the up front kit expense and I wanted to cruise at speeds over 200 mph. The SQ 2000 is beautiful on paper. http://www.klscomposites.com Their facilities are near to where I live. I called to arrange a visit, but then cancelled. I just wanted to learn more about the plane. Instead, when I called, I got something closer to a time-share presentation. I had been in sales for 10 years. I know the difference between a helpful sales person and a sales person who considers themselves a "closer." I inquired around and heard some things that confirmed my suspicions. I won't repeat them, you can do your own research if your iterested. It may be a fine design, and KLS Composites may be a wonderful company. But a company presents itself through its sales department... and their sales department gave me the heebeejeebees. I didn't want to spend a hard earned day off fending off an ABC salesman while simply trying to get information. I was curious though why they didn't have a display at the Oshkosh show. The Aerocanard is a variation of the Cozy. I was actually leaning toward this until I learned legal battle that was going on between Nat Puffer (the designer of the Cozy) and Aerocanard. I didn't want to get stuck in the middle. I listened to what both sides had to say, and then mad a personal decision about who I thought was the most credible. I did not see them at the show either, and I've heard rumors that they may be out of business as well. That left me with the Cozy IV. I can build a 4 place 220 mph airplane for what I would spend on a nice car. I can get started for low cost and continue building as funds are available, not worrying about making monthly payments on a kit. I can hold off on the expensive items (ie: engine, avionics, etc.) until the end so I don't have to worry whether or not some event in my life will prevent me from finishing. Building from scratch is not a concern after hearing from some kit builders who are quoting times to build that are similar. Everyone has different opinions about what they want and what makes a great airplane. Just do the research. Whatever choice you make, you will not regret it.

Sorry... still on Ch.1 p.1. I may be there until we get moved into a new home. I bought the plans a little early when I got wind of Nat leaving the plans business. Turns out he was just turning it over to A.S.& S. I may go ahead and do the bulkheads next month, but that would be about it.

It also sounds like you had a cascading failure... something like a blockage in the core for example. This would cause continuous pump failures, hose failures, etc. until the primary problem is corrected.

http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/030807_wright.html That's all I know... I'm watching the NTSB site to see the preliminary.

I missed the rides as well... but Kevin Funk was nice enough to let me hop in and try his with the nose off the ground. I never thought about it, but it did give me a different perspective on how comfortable the flying position will be. The two I tried on for size before were both nose to ground. Besides Greg Richter, I think Kevin must be the most enthusiastic flyer I've met! He had given others a ride, but by the time I tracked him down, he was packing up to leave (which didn't stop him from offering to show me his plane). He did have me a little worried when he took off from Oshkosh though... Nat said he had a Lyco 320 engine instead of the 360. Kevin loaded up with fuel, stuffed the baggage pods full, and headed out with four people. I watched him go down the runway, and go, and go, and go, and go... did he pull up? Finally just at the horizon I saw him slowly climbing into the sky. I think I'm going to get a 220 HP engine. If it loads correctly, this is a picture of his plane. In the background is the screaming eagles doing their thing... I also have a couple of cool pictures with Patty Wagstaff doing her thing in the background. (Let me know if you want it.) On a sad note... I noticed that in one of the panoramic shots I took of the Shell square, I just barely caught a glimps of the Hughes racer replica. That was the plane that went down in Yellowstone park next to Old Faithful on Monday after the show. The builder was the one flying the plane and died in the crash. At the show, my Dad stopped to talk to him about the plane... I hurried him along so I could get out to the strip to watch the Lancairs do their fly-by. Maybe we could have stayed a few more minutes.

I talked to 3 different builders at the show who were widening the fuselage by 2 inches. Is there a reason 2" is commonly used as opposed to... say 4" or 6"? Structural, weight, canard, or wing fitting issues? I'm just curious.

uh... well... nothing. Okay, how about this... there are two types of hardener, which do you use in the hardener side of a pump? Do you mix the hardener types for whatever you use most often and then not use the pump for really fast or slow mixes? I definately want to go with the pump, but that was something that I couldn't find an answer for. Oh, and does MGS have a milder oder than the others?