Jon Matcho

I can't answer these questions, but do know of some almost-canard examples... The Aeriks 200. A larger twin version of the same concept is the Piaggio P180. You could design a plane in X-Plane and compare the characteristics with that of the Cozy model already available, and that might answer some real questions before you had to bring in the aeronautical engineers.

This weekend I hung two shop lights (T8 energy saving flourescents that I never knew existed), moved a workbench up from my basement model airplane shop, and hung a 4' x 8' pegboard on the garage wall. With the virtual kick-in-the-A from Jerry, and realizing that I completely did not want to rip my sheetrock down, I felt motivated going into the weekend. I thought I'd be able to cut foam for my first bulkheads, and lay them up, but time ran out. I don't feel bad though... I'm finally getting a shop together with some elbow room. It's sooo close I can feel it. Any feedback on the pegboard setup would be most appreciated.

Here's a great thread titled Finishing a composite airplane that includes a discussion on which colors are acceptable (in addition to white).

I am certain you can, and I'm sure your friends' help will come in handy as well (any help for that matter). I'm sure you'll find yourself to become quite knowledgeable with the techniques of "aviation grade" fiberglass techniques, and before long will be aiding others with your experience. No it doesn't, unless you take offense to what might appear as know-it-all behavior, but in actuality is just good info. I for one do not know nearly everything , and after time was able to identify at least one thing Marc didn't know either (even though it had nothing to do with airplanes). So "welcome", and please do feel free to join the discussion!

Some very pointed statements have been made about this forum and me which are clearly unfair and hurtful, let alone not true. I've left this alone for some time now, but it seems some actually believe the hype. If silence implies "truth", then I must speak up -- so that some factual information is available for everyone to judge for themselves. Following is my so-called "tirade", the 3rd out of 3 replies to John asking me to export this forum's data. Here is the exact text of my final reply: ...and John's 3-word response: Which I find hypocritical when compared with this next statement: Evidently not what John chose to do, and exactly what I was trying to do. Not once did I receive any type of personal communication from John, or anyone else, to "discuss the issues openly" even when I asked for such a discussion. In the mail just prior to the one above, I wrote to John, "What is going on here? Give it to me straight John, here, one-on-one." John's response continued to focus relentlessly on how to dump this forum's data for purposes that I now see as apparent. Considering the posts John made in this thread over 6 months ago, I find it hard to believe that this thought never crossed his mind. Also consider these public statements John has made, directed my way: "No. No No" "Make ASSumptions? This is when I suggest that it's best to STFU..." "You don't [yet] have the background to know what will work well and what won't." "I think it is this kind of "leadership" that we're over in Iraq fighting against..." Would you be able to keep from being offended by these statements? Finally, I'm not sure whether the following statements should be considered contrary or just ironic: I know this isn't going to change anything in terms of the forums at Canard Aviation Inc., but I had to get this "out there" once and for all. The Canard Zone Forums will continue as an open and independently run community, with everyone welcome to post, and not to be dominated by any business or personal agendas. After this "reboot", you will see that there's a new crew of builders and flyers attaching themselves to this site. I welcome everyone to join the discussion, and feel equally privileged to read posts from everyone -- from the experts to the novices alike. Please help yourself to use this forum as you like -- it is as much yours as it is anyone else's, and rest assured we'll be here for a very long time.

I think you're right -- they're just talking about post-cure. According to the book Understanding Aircraft Composite Construction: Basics of Materials and Techniques for the Non-engineer by Zeke Smith, Poly Epoxy is a product of the Poly-Fiber Aircraft Coatings Company. Here are some points the book makes: the manufacturer makes a strong point about the improvement in strength w/post-cure it's expensive the hardener is subject to spoilage from humidity and CO2 in the air, making a ratio pump less attractive Since the book's printing in 1996, MGS Epoxy is now one of, if not, the most expensive epoxy systems out there. I plan on using that for my entire plane because it does not contain aromatic amines, ... and, well, everyone else is using it with great results. Still, the Poly Epoxy system might be a good alternative to MGS. According to this book Aircraft Spruce has used it in their EAA/Sport Air Workshops. You might want to call ACSS and give us an update.

I put a small order into Aircraft Spruce recently and received 100% satisfactory service, and even a touch of Love. For just a book and a full-sized set of M drawings, I was given all the attention one could expect for such a small order. My phone calls were answered and returned promptly, and my order was delivered as promised (the part I knew was not backordered). Expectations were met. Also, I did say that I ordered "full-sized M drawings", which have not been available previously. I never looked forward to the accuracy of tracing M-drawings using a french curve, and am looking forward to receiving these. I was told that these are created using a printing press and NOT a copier, and that the result will be true to the original M drawing dimensions. I'll let everyone know how they look when they arrive.

You might indeed be able to use this spraying technique for non-structural parts, such as the nose cone and engine cowling. However, your resulting structural parts will be dramatically different in strength and composition than those produced by the Rutan techniques. You could try to prove this wrong (or right) by building a canard (chapter 10), and repeating this test, which measures the point at which your canard fails catastrophically. But don't bother... Before your friend talks you into building a Corvette , you might want to give this book a read to get a good understanding of what's at work with regard to the underlying structure and materials: Understanding Aircraft Composite Construction: Basics of Materials and Techniques for the Non-Engineer by Zeke Smith (ISBN: 096428281X)

Brad Hawley has advised me that this project has been sold (for the asking price) and picked up earlier this week. To the new builder... best wishes, and enjoy!

Okay, with your permission Jerry , I'd like to build a work table and a work bench, and can settle for shelves only right now. I want to begin building NOW too, but don't want to start something this big without thinking some things through. With your Web site, tool advice, and words of encouragement, at times Jerry you are the wind beneath my wings, so to speak. Seriously, thanks for the push.

Yeah, after writing that, I realized the magnitude of the effort required to setup an area big enough to sandblast Cozy parts in. As far as the garage workshop goes... I was thinking to build the bulkheads without a finished shop, but now I'm looking at my uninsulated walls with very few electrical outlets and am thinking that "now's the time" to rip the sheetrock down, run new electric, insulate, and finish proper before putting up benches, shelves, and cabinets. Still, this all beats the delays I am having with my other effort of clearing land in my back yard for a 3-car/1-plane garage/hangar.

Hennie, I'm sure Mark didn't mean that, but from what I understand, peel ply does add a small amount of weight when compared to layups without (and then sanding). If that is true, then sandblasting may help save several pounds on the total airframe. Combine this with the Pressure Bagging technique and you might have the lightest parts possible. This all sounds very appealing to me as a time saver PLUS potential the benefit to produce a lighter airframe. I can rationalize costs over the duration of the build by making the analogy of paying low-cost laborers to sand my parts for hours while I sip my beverage of choice.

I am still working on my shop, spending 1-2 hours per night on breaking various aspects of the old setup to make room for the new. Attached is a preliminary floor plan for the new shop, along with a picture of that side of the garage. I don't have a lot of room to work with, but my plan is to establish a foothold on that side of the garage, and then "squat" on some space on the other half. I'm sure Wife won't mind if I go slow and steady with all of this. My dilemma now is whether to pull down the sheetrock in the entire garage and insulate so I can keep warm in the wintertime, or begin building my bulkheads. We have a bathroom addition above the garage that freezes every winter, so I need to do this anyway. Any feedback is welcome. After reading Wayne Hicks' post on sandblasting, I'm wondering whether I should build a sandblasting box, or just take the parts out back.

Yikes... just when I thought I knew how I was going to do my layups. Are we now saying to NOT peel ply everything, but just the transitions, and sandblast everything instead? I've used a self-contained sandblasting system before, but can't imagine the mess an open system would make. Will the EPA mark my house as a clean-up site once I'm halfway through chapter 13?

The E-Racer is another Rutan Long EZ derivative with side-by-side seating. If you want to read about a superbly built machine with a supercharged Lycoming IO-540 then get a hold of the November 2003 issue of EAA Sport Aviation magazine (www.eaa.org). Attached is a pic from the article. An unoffical E-Racer Web page can be found here: http://www.eracer.org/eracer.html

On Friday 5/7, I put a call into AeroCad to find out what options exist for using their add-on plans. Anxious to talk to someone, I called again this evening. I'm still waiting on a response. It seems that there are a handful of people in the same boat as I am -- wanting to talk to Jeff and buy something, but nobody is home. The optimist in me feels that if AeroCad approached ACS right now with the notion of settling their differences and becoming an approved vendor, that would be possible. Even now, I think Jeff should feel free in providing parts, service, and consulting to Cozy plans owners. For example, I have Cozy plans, and I am willing to pay a few hundred $ for flight-tested modifications (ie. AeroCanard plans). These are just my opinions, worth only the paper they're written on.

I know what you're talking about, but unfortunately do not yet have a solution. I can tell you that I am working on it, and have put in the feature request (as have many others) into the forum software developers @ Jelsoft. In the meantime, I use this link to get all posts made within the last 24 hours: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/search.php?do=getdaily

Mark, I believe the AeroCanard SB is nearly identical to the Cozy Mark IV (and thus some of the Co-Z vs. AeroCad issues), so the 36" may stand to be correct for the Cozy Mark IV back set width. Others will hopefully chime in here. I believe that AeroCad did provide plans to make the back seat wider, but cannot confirm as of yet.

This is an excellent idea... any problem if I name the section Cozy on a Shoestring ? I tell my friends, "I can't afford an airplane new or used, but I can afford materials for chapters 4 through 7." I'll put this under the Building section, but relating to this thread, I am trying to come up with ideas how to better organize the topics of discussion. The feedback I have received is mainly "there's nothing wrong with the setup", but it feels somewhat long in the tooth to me.

Jack, as John said, the plans do call for a small NACA scoop on each side of the fuselage, just below and behind the canard I believe. While at SnF, I spoke w/Carl Denk who built a Cosy Classic. His plane has the NACA inlet(s) underneath the nose, which he says prevents water from traveling UP into the fuselage. There's also the aesthetic benefit of having fuselage sides without the NACA vents, which I think looks better. This is a mod I am considering, but since it's a Cosy Classic, is it really a mod?

I have a call into AeroCad. Given that I own Cozy plans, I should be able to freely seek design enhancements for consideration during the course of my plane's construction. I am only left with an uncertainty with regard to the content and scope of the AeroCanard plans. Can someone share specifics? Are some chapters essentially identical? Or, are the plans radically different, with different chapter numbers/purposes, etc? I look forward to Jeff returning my call and will also give an update on what I find.

I caught the last few minutes of a story about an F-15 losing an entire right wing in flight, but making it back to base. The pilot couldn't figure out why he couldn't get his airspeed down for landing. He didn't know that he lost a wing until he landed, when he said, "If I saw that I'd have ejected." Here's the story: http://www.uss-bennington.org/phz-nowing-f15.html And here is another similar story: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Movies/Aircraft/MilitaryAccidents/F18TopGunMidAir/

I'll break the ice with this new section... I bought plans in August 2003 after 10+ years of only dreaming about building a Rutan-based aircraft. I wanted a Berkut, but they went under and I'm sure I could never afford anyway. I wanted a Velocity, but I couldn't afford that either. I saw the Cozy, then took a stab at looking for Velocity Plans (silly me). So I bought the Cozy IV plans and haven't looked back. At the time of purchase it was good to talk to Nat, but I also noticed this site and the www.cozybuilders.org Web site, and many other builder's sites. It was this community that made me comfortable with moving forward, even without knowing "the plan" just yet, but knowing I could get some help from the group if I just asked. After many iterations and evolutions of deciding where to build (detached garage which wasn't built yet, or in basement) I have finally settled on establishing a "foothold" in 1/2 of my 2-car garage. I did do several projects towards "spousal appeasement" as well as towards building a detached garage (which I intend to get back to). Right now I am currently in the process of putting in 1-2 hours every night, trying to organize and filter through my grandfather's "inheritance"... I have all the brass bolts, files, drill bits, old tools, and odd parts I will ever need -- I'm going to build one hell of an epoxy box. I built a table early on, but had to deconstruct because, well... it "was of inferior quality" and sized too small. I now have a 3.8' x 8' conference table (from my business) I was hoping to use, but I found that it's slightly concave (1/8" in the middle), so I'm looking to build a 10' x 4' table as soon as I organize all those dang bolts and filter out the dead spiders. To section off the garage I am planning on hanging 6-mil plastic all around, to keep the majority of the dust from the other side. Ever see those plastic temperature barriers that section off warehouse areas from the outside/office area? I have materials for chapters 4-7 and could start on the floor if I really wanted, but I really do NOT think it is a good idea to begin building until you establish at least a basic workplace and perimeter. So there's me right now... how is everyone else doing with decision, planning, and building progress?

Okay y'all, I made a few minor changes: I only made items #1 and #2 worse (read on)..., left #3 as-is, added a 'Progress Reports' (#4) section to the Building category, and finally, I renamed 'First Flights' to 'Flight Reports & Sightings' (#5). Feel free to let me know your thoughts on the other items...

Anyone else besides me care to stand up for Thomas Alva Edison? 1,368 separate and distinct patents. Let there be light.