Jon Matcho

Dang! For a moment there I felt cool.

This does bring up one of the not-so-good points about auto engine conversions -- the need to use automotive fuel ("mogas") instead of 100 low lead airplane fuel ("avgas"). I understand 100ll is going away in a year or two, but do not know whether the replacement will be something that my car engine would like. I think it's a major PITA to have to worry about logistics for filling your tanks with "mogas" when it's generally unavailable at the airport. Eggenfellner talks about 100ll in their Subaru engines working fine, but I haven't seen much talking about 100ll in rotary engines. The rotary-oil issue is not as bad, but still has its challenges. How do you really know how much oil to mix? The 2-stroke analogy is also good -- poor 1/2 required oil into tank, fill half tank w/gas, poor remaining 1/2 of oil into tank, fill tank w/remaining gas. Mix thoroughly. (?) Anyone care to shoot down these concerns to keep an automotive conversion appealing for me?

Congratulations! The Quickie/Dragonfly type has grown on me. I've seen a few in person, but never in the air. Seeing that they can fly with "tiny" engines and still get good performance is impressive. So when do you think you'll begin mixing your first cup of epoxy?

Interest in canards of all types continues, as shown by a steady flow of new members at the Canard Zone. Data is complete through October 31, 2004.

Wow, I didn't notice that, but it looks like it really doesn't matter. Just more shipping, etc. Never going to happen IMO. However, there's really no reason why someone else couldn't derive and develop a new design based on the Long-EZ -- just takes a major amount of time. Would be nice though.

I do NOT know exactly what they do, but I suppose it's ~$25,000 worth of parts and labor towards converting the engine to be "aircraft grade". Regardless of their actual costs, it's up to the rules of supply and demand how much they charge / we pay. If you can figure it all out yourself, as some do, you'll save a bunch of bucks. On the other hand, if anything goes wrong you may not be up in the air, or worse yet, be looking for a place to land. There are a handful that have identified Subaru engines as their intent, and even some Long-EZs flying with them. There might even be a Cozy in the air with a Subaru. It's really too early for anyone to declare a standard for this approach. I'm going to build for the next few years, then decide between rotary, Lycoming, or Subaru at the last possible moment I can. There are issues with this, particularly with a fuel-injection system requiring specific plumbing. I'm just going to work through it.

This graph shows which canards our members are building, flying, or just interested in (as of October 30, 2004): You can change your primary interest by logging in, clicking your user name in the upper right of any page, and then selecting 'My Profile' which will then allow you to select the 'Edit Profile' button where you can change your personal information.

There is a lot of information about Quickie Aircraft types available on our sister site: www.quickheads.com (formerly www.quickiebuilders.org) An email list group is also available here: https://q-list.groups.io/g/main (which is also integrated into our Mailing List Feeds forum section)

Greg, join the COZY mail list and Marc will send you a list of ALL members with phones and e-mail addresses. Join the CSA for $25 and you'll get the same. I also encourage everyone to edit their User Control Panel settings and enter their Real Name and Location (City, State/Prov, Country).

There is some good information about Dragonfly Aircraft types available on our sister site: www.quickheads.com An email mailing list group is also available here: https://groups.io/g/DragonflyList (which is also integrated into our Mailing List Feeds forum section) Dragonfly plans and kits were available through Dart Industries, but unfortunately is no longer operational. You can download the Dragonfly Construction Manual here:

Why don't you buy them new, direct from the vendor? But "wow!" I knew that SlipStream Industries owned the plans at one time, but just checking there now, I see that they just sold rights to Dart Industries (or split companies). Plans are $400, or you can buy a kit and be done by Tuesday.

This seems like a good idea... to ask questions about topics including: insurance, DARs, approval, the 40-hour test period, formal check-rides, etc. Is that what you have in mind? Not sure how 'Conditional License' captures all that, so I may be missing something here. Please elaborate.

Nathan, looks like there are two members of the Cozy mail list near you. http://www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list/geography/Cozy%20Builders%20Southeast%20Quadrant.htm Join the list here: www.cozybuilders.org/mail_list to find out who they are along with their contact info. Also, join the CSA and you'll be provided with a similar list, mainly of Long-EZ and VariEze flyers. www.canardzone.com/csa This is how I managed 3 visits myself.

Looking at the CSA membership list, there are a handful of Continental 85s and 90s on VariEzes and Long-EZs, but as Marc said, not a one on a Cozy of any sort. It was interesting to see that the number of Mazda rotaries and Subaru conversions each compare with the number of Continentals. Other engine choices noted were Jabiru 3300, Rotax 914, Ford V8, Chevy V6, Onan, and Revmaster.

Some quick reasons for the rotary are: Comparable weight & HP to a Lycoming 360 Fewer moving parts to break Inherent low vibration Cost effective A visit to www.rotaryaviation.com will leave you convinced of the merits of flying a rotary engine. The Subaru conversions were rumored to have insufficient HP for a while, but one visit to www.eggenfellneraircraft.com should convince you otherwise. As far as other auto engine conversions go, they just need to hit the magic HP+weight combination so that they're comparable to a Lycoming. In other words, a Chevy V8 is likely too heavy to allow the nose to remain down without 500lbs of ballast in the nose. I think that many builders and flyers choose Lycomings because they want to get in the air more quickly. There's also the established infrastructure of suppliers to recognize. Initially I thought that a rotary would be the only option for me, but with quite a few years of time left for me to decide, I'm keeping all options open. When's that Honda engine coming out?

I'm not holding my breath for much good coming out of the current battlefield. There is that other battlefield where we want EFIS Company A fighting with EFIS Company B over features, quality, and value. I'm hoping for an all-out war here. Thank you very much, but I hope for my sake that you're referring to my plane parts and not my Web site.

It might be me, but I do not see where a hi-fidelity stereo system is factored into your panel Wayne. What's a hotrod without tunes?

I would like to believe there's hope here (I have to believe in something). If you look at telephones, they went virtually unchanged for well over 50 years. The technology finally evolved with cordless, cell phones, encryption/security, and deregulation along the way (don't think this last factor will help us with avionics). Most recently, we see small companies changing the landscape once again with telephony over the Internet. Options for the consumer are at their best. I hope that many more www.bluemountainavionics.com and www.advanced-control-systems.com stories develop -- with experimenters grabbing the attention of the industry and making progress happen.

Once all the parameters get tuned and worked out, and HITS displays become common, won't this teach everyone to forget the basics? Kind of like the lack of need for knowing Morse code. Then again, maybe that was a good thing... But forget the EFIS, your real achievement is getting those pictures to happen using PowerPoint! I'm impressed. After being sucked into and tortured by your concept panel pages once again, I'm nearly convinced I need to decide which of my daughters won't be going to college. I hope the prices of this stuff comes way down over the next 5 years.

I am going to present my plane as a slightly evolved Cozy Mark IV, which is a slightly evolved Long-EZ, which is a canard, which I built from plans. I believe, although I'm not certain, that the modifications to the plane are not critical. I also know you can name it anything you like and can certainly register the serial number as #1 (first one out of your "factory"). In any event, I'm not too concerned about my adjustments and will cross this bridge when I get to it. The hardest part is NOT having plans for these ideas out there. Phil has some great ideas, and the best made case for retracts, but as far as I know is not selling or supporting his designs as plans. This may be an obstacle for you. That's a major change, and one I haven't seen completed. I believe I've heard about it before, but you'll have some work to do with designing the structure. Remember what someone said, "Don't build and fly that plane, or you will die." Think twice about major mods, for a number of reasons. Fiberglass flexes in flight, like an in-air suspension system. Carbon, if used for what I assume your are suggesting to be the entire wing, will make for a harder ride. Also, you have to worry about new forces from a carbon wing transferring energy to the fuselage, which may not be designed to support these new forces. I wouldn't touch the wing. I've thought about using carbon myself, first with skinning the fuselage, then with the bulkheads. The bulkheads make more sense to me, as they can be infinitely stiff. However, it was also pointed out to me that carbon explodes into a million tiny darts upon impact. As a result, you're best covering it with fiberglass anyway. After thinking it through myself, the most I'll use carbon is possibly as an aesthetic covering on my instrument panel. What you might want to consider are 'composite sandwhiches', such as glass+kevlar+foam+kevlar+glass, which has interesting qualities over a glass+glass+foam+glass+glass structure. I may use kevlar within the underbelly of my fuselage somewhere, to protect me from that crash landing I worry about now and again. Just be careful, and get all the feedback you can. You're line of study sounds like a great start, but remember that if you change nothing, you'll be in the air much faster and with a much more predictable schedule.

Len, welcome! It takes a while, but the whole world will end up building a canard sooner or later... Not at all, even without a license. However, you need to be certain you like being up in the air, so having a pilot's certificate does not hurt at all. You'll need a pilots license and a few hours in someone else's canard. Keep lurking around these groups and you'll find out more about that. You have to balance these considerations with whether you'll put your life at risk. Some have done this, but not really worth it IMO. For some parts, sure/maybe, but for other places, particularly the wings -- no way. Things can be scaled here and there, such as the fuselage width (but keeping the wings the same). Don't touch the wings and consider only the smallest adjustments to give yourself a bit more room. There are a handful of tricks, even with keeping the plans as-is. A plans-wide linear scale-up is NOT possible, as the wings don't scale, as well as aerodynamics in general.

Welcome one and all! He hadn't finished his plane yet, and only had bulkheads and fuselage sides happening as far as I could tell. Sorry, no. I did manage to contact him again, and he recommended NOT to pursue this route as the design changes are overwhelming. I would agree. If you want a slightly "less Cozy" interior, you could consider widening the rear and even the seatback by just a couple inches. The consensus seems to be that anything beyond this will require calling in the aerodynamicists. Get yourself a set of AeroCanard plans to see where to begin with this. You could also google 'King Kozy' and get the dead-end story of an ambitious enlargement project.

Here's a late-breaking announcement from AeroCad that I found most interesting. I hope the "shareware" mention comes to fruition.

Yes, more or less. The plans even include an aesthetic option for a "more rounded nose", but it's not dramatic. I am planning to draw mine out a bit, make it more rounded, and come up with slightly better "lines". On the other hand, you don't want to do anything to change the aerodynamics. Anyone else? What's the story here?

Palaver?! You're not from around here are you? I listed several benefits at the bottom of the page, after you wade through all that palaver. If I had to do all my flat parts over again, I would definitely use this technique. However, it's important to note that I mean AGAIN, and not for the first time. You still need to know how to do layups without assistance from a vacuum.