mlefebvre

"My roadblock was with shipping of HAZMAT and how to avoid super high shipping cost. " Im not sure if this helps you at all, but, here in Hawaii ALL the materials you need as far as the HAZMAT go, are HERE already. With the surfboard and windsurf industry booming, they have all the epoxy you could need and you could setup a deal and order with one of the shapers here. Something to think about. -Marc

I cant honestly say I am a builder, but am interested in getting started in the near future. I live on Maui, and finding space to build has been a road block. I am still deciding between Cozy and AeroCad, but none the less, I do want a canard craft. Aloha, Marc lefebvre@iwavesolutions.com

What a dumb idea! (nudge nudge wink wink) Marc

Posted with permission: Dear Cozy builders and friends of Wicks: Thank you for your overwhelming support of our company through this transition period regarding the sale and purchase of the Cozy AircraftCompany. I appreciate the loyalty of our customers standing up for us as the recent changes have taken place. Some have been wondering what is going on at Wicks lately and I would like to take this opportunity to fill you in as best as I can. In September Jerome Hediger resigned from his position as general manager. I was made the Vice President of Wicks Aircraft and moved over to Aircraft from our Organ Company which is the building across the street. My position at Wicks Organ was Vice President and Sale Manager where I have worked for the last 18 years. I have been a pilot for over 20 years flying all types of airplanes from Tomahawks to Navajo's. I currently fly our company's Bonanza 767U. I and have worked at the Oshkosh and Sun & Fun Air shows numerous times over the years. Jerome and I continue to keep a friendly relationship with each other as we gave him the bike and trike business to continue with. He also continues to make the high quality plywood that we supply. I am the first Wick in my family to participate in the management of the Aircraft Company. My predecessors have done a wonderful job building the company from a hobby to a formidable company. Most importantly they have built a wonderful relationship with you, our customers. What we, the owners of the company have failed to do is support this company with the funds it needed to grow and hold its own in the market place. Now that I am here, I can understand why people like Nat Puffer have said that Wicks Aircraft is just a hobby for the organ company. We have hired Mr. Jim Kaiser to be our General Manager who comes to us from a career in the Air force with many years of aviation experience. Jim is very enthusiastic about working together to grow the business. You will soon see our new catalog which will have over three hundred new products in it. We have received great feedback from customers like you who have made suggestions for what we should carry and we appreciate any more suggestions that you have. Many have asked us where we stand with Aircraft Spruce and Cozy. Aircraft Spruce did not accept our agreement. As I understand it, Spruce only bought the rights to reproduce the plans of the aircraft. Nat Puffer is still responsible for the design and support to the builders. Jim Irwin made it clear to me that Aircraft Spruce did not design the Cozy Aircraft and cannot provide engineering support, comment on changes in manufacturing or parts specification. Technical support is to be provided by Nat Puffer. Nat is still going to produce the newsletter as well. The verbal agreement that we had with Nat Puffer from the beginning of our association together was to pay him 5% commission on all Cozy Kit parts sold to Cozy builders. Nat in return was promoting our company equally as Aircraft Spruce and the other authorized distributors. No one of management from here ever made any agreement to pass on commissions to Aircraft Spruce. We have never seen the agreement between Aircraft Spruce and Nat Puffer. Nat was giving us the list of names of people who bought Cozy plans, producing the Cozy newsletter and providing engineering and technical support to builders. I offered 3% commission to Aircraft Spruce instead of 5% since Aircraft Spruce is obviously not going to equally promote Wicks as themselves. Spruce won't be doing the newsletter nor, will they provide the builders support. The offer seems fair, less service equals less commission. Since no agreement has been reached with Aircraft Spruce, we are continuing to honor the verbal agreement that we have had with Nat Puffer. We pay him an advertising fee for the newsletter and a commission for the parts we sell to Cozy builders. If he wants to give any or all of that to Spruce, that is his business. Jim Irwin doesn't like the agreement that I continue to honor with Nat. I don't understand why. We also have received and should continue to receive a list of people who buy the Cozy plans. Time will tell if we continue to receive this list. I hear that we have been taken off of the official Cozy website. This Web Site I believe is owned by Aircraft Spruce and they can put on or take off what ever they wish. I would like to conclude by saying that WICKS WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE QUALITY AIRCRAFT PARTS TO OUR CUSTOMERS WITH THE SAME HIGH QUALITY SERVICE THAT YOU EXPECT NO MATTER WHAT PLANE YOU ARE BUILDING OR FROM WHOM YOU BUY YOUR PLANS FROM. Thank you for your support, Scott M. Wick Vice President Wicks Aircraft Supply Highland IL 62249

Marc, those are exactly what I am thinking about. Those would make darn sexy fuel tanks. I wonder though how useful they are as intended and baggage pods? They dont seem large enough for that. So, here is a question. Using such tanks, I wonder what the best method would be to integrate them into the fuel system? Should they suppliment the strake fuel tanks as someone mentioned, or should they feed direct as two seperate sources of fuel (for a total of 4 includeing the strake tanks). Would each pod contain its own sump? Curious about possible solutions and opinions? Marc

Hmmm... interesting points... I suppose once i get more intimate with the details of the build I will be better suited to suggest these kind of changes. Thats why this forum is so useful, cause you guys for the most part have "been there, done that". Again, any www links out there for those baggage pods I can look at? Marc

Your correct in pointing that out. I guess I should have been more clear. I would rather make internal changes to gain more fuel space than permanent external changes (ie. adding pods, or other permanent "add-ons"). I worry about the affects of balance and drag and other factors that external changes can make. I think enlarging the fuel tanks in the strakes (as long as they don't change the size of shape of the strakes) would have the least amount of net affects of the change. I could be wrong but I think the fuel tanks sit on the COG or close to it. Adding the rear seat bladder is another option that would make the least amount of changes as again, the weight of the fuel would be like having a backseat passenger (or two). Adding external fuel pods would probably be the biggest engineering challenge but an interesting one to consider. it would require permanent mounting points and reinforcements in that area which could have other structural impacts. Definitely more complex, but, still doable. I hope I am clearer on my train of thought. Marc

Yes, this is so I can get to the mainland on occasion from Hawaii if need be. Excellent suggestions. I think my first plan of attack is to recover as much space in the strakes as physically possible. I have considered the rear seat bladder as well but was curious about another solution with external pods as described. Does anyone have any links to the baggage pods I keep hearing about? I would love to see what they look like, how they attatch, etc... I didnt want to make too many permament changes since 90% of my flying is going to be around the islands. You guys have been VERY helpful. I am ready to start my build my only sticking point right now is place to build. I have been working mostly on solving that final problem. If you recall I am living in a townhouse. The airport doesnt have any hanger space available unfortunately. I have looked into renting industrial warehouse space in the industrial park and have found it pricey ($1/sq ft). I am having a house built but it wont be completed for a year. So, until I resolve the WHERE to build issue I am in a holding pattern. I figured I would spend this time getting primed and ready and obtain as much knowledge as possible. I have worked with EPOXY for years in the windsurfing business so, layups are second nature, otherwise I would practice. My next idea is to approach some friends I know who make custom windsurfing boards out here and see if I can rent a corner of his manufactuering loft in Haiku. Anyways... Im off topic as usual. Marc

Excellent point, and is one really good reason to discuss these kind of things to the point for disaster recovery. #$%^ happens when you least expect it. I wonder if following an airliner to close on approach could be classifieds as tower error or more like pilot error? Marc

That is an interesting idea. I hadnt considered air force surplus for such a thing but that would make sense. Does anyone have any links to websites that carry air force surplus parts? Or any ideas to a source for attatchment points for fuel tanks used on other craft. The main reason I was thinkin of "re-engineering" is that our application has to be LIGHT to be RIGHT. As such, most of those military applications would be for 500lbs fuel tanks and over built to the max. BUT, I guess the attatchment mechanism could be duplicated on a smaller scale. Hmmm.... Wheels spinning.... Marc

I was wondering if the engineers here could maybe help me with some ideas about removable wing fuel tanks. I have seen one of the Long-EZ's that went on the long distance flight had torpedo like fuel tanks under each wing. Dick Rutan was saying that they were a "permement" modification (we all know nothing is permement in fiberglass) that were made for the trip. I was wondering how hard would it be to design a latching system that could support these tanks when needed and then be removable when not needed. Kinda like what bombers use to hold their payload under their wings. He was very helpful in the design of the tanks themselves and how to attatch in a permement fashion, but I was interested in taking it step farther. Any ideas out there? Marc

I was wondering JUST the same thing. There are no specs listed on the site but JETS do consume quite a bit of fuel. I'd love to know his top speed, gross capacity, cruise consumption, climb rate, and range. I think Wing Tanks would deffinately be a necesity. I spoke to Dick Rutan over email the other day about his Fuel Tanks he used on his long distance EZ flight and he gave me some nice ideas. Real easy to build. Id love to make them removable but havent figured out that part of the engineering equation. Maybe I should post another thread on that. As I said on the Cozy Builders Mailing List when this link was posted there as well, WOW, what a KEWL looking plane. Marc

Sorry this thread is not on the approved list of topics. Although keep in mind this is the Canard Forum, not the Cozy Forum, and there does seem to be some interest on the topic as it pertains to Canards in general. I find it interesting to read and debate topics of engineering, aerodynamics, and materials. This is the "Coffee House" so, chatting on such topics should be valid. If you don't agree with the topic or don't have anything to add to it, then just move along. Giving construction updates should probably be in the construction forum. lol. Although, this being the "Coffee House" all topics are ON topic. A few people here seem to be of the thought "Shut up, build it to plans, don't ask questions that don't pertain to plans, dont make any changes, and fly it straight, and don't cause any trouble here.". What ever happened to individual thought and expression of ideas and testing limits or at least discussing the possibility of what happens aerodynamically if you do. If everyone colored inside of the lines since the beginning of time, how far along we would be? There wouldn't be a cozy. There CERTAINLY wouldn't be a RUTAN building the more advanced and technologically innovative crafts ever thought of. It is interesting to read about the experiences of other's in testing the aerodynamic limits of the various canard designs, including the cozy. I had hire expectations of this forum ... since we are "experimental" plan builders, aren't we? Anyways... I have thoroughly enjoyed the responses... Thanks!! Marc

Again, I dont plan on doing ANY aerobatics in any plane, but was curious about the manuvers that people HAVE tried and what IS possible given the design limitations of the LEZ/VEZ/Cozy/Etc... No need to get surly...

Yes, we have all beaten to death the point that these planes are not aerobatic planes and are for cross country flight, yada yada yada. I posed the question more for a discussion as to the technical issues and wondered about simple aerobatics out of curiosity. I probbaly would never try any either but was curious about them. It seems many people here dont really want to even discuss the possiblity. At an air show a few years back I saw a 737 doing a barrel roll and it was just amazing to see. We all know it wasnt designed for it. But that isnt the point. Its more interesting to debat if you could not if you should.

Interesting... Why can't you not fly inverted in a LEZ/VEZ/Cozy?

I am wondering if it is possible to do any rolls or loops in a Cozy (or EZ for that matter). I dont mean any of that fancy stall stuff that is not possible in a canard, just real basic and simple. Has anyone tried and lived to tell the tale? Can a cozy with stand that kind of manuvers?

Excellent. It just wansnt clear with Aircraft Spruce taking over things, that would still be the case since Nat says he is still running the newsletter at the moment. Thanks for any clarification. Marc

Is it possible to get hardcopies of ALL the past newsletters for the Mark IV? (which I think cover Newsletter's 34 through current ?83?) I have seen them online on your site but would like to enjoy reading them in their orginal form (photos and all) off line. I realize that the past year they are in Acrobat Format and is an easy print but the older ones are just text translated (wow, what an effort that must have been) into HTML. Does subscribing to the newsletter ensure I receive all past issues in orginal format? Regards... Marc

Does no one insure their cozy's????

In going over the past newsletters and reading about how people have been trying to save weight on the plane, there have been some interesting ideas put forward. It seems one of the areas is the firewall construction. The Carbon BID solution did very well in the tests between using Aliminum, Steel, and Carbon. What kind of weight savings can be expected if you choose the carbon route over the plans? Has anyone ever considered titanium? Titanium is light weight, has a very high melting point, and doesn't corrode. The main drawbacks to using titanium are that it's expensive, and it's fairly hard to work with. It also doesn't get along well with cad plated hardware, which is typical of AN and NAS parts. You can pick up surplus Titanium at: http://www.titaniumjoe.com/ and for the size required on the firewall, shouldn't run you more than $300. It seems any weight savings in the rear is a good thing. What are the thoughts on this and OTHER weight saving ideas? Marc

Such as??

What books and videos can you guys recomend on canard aircraft? Marc

Happy New Year to ALL! I am planning my build and right now my main obstacle is findng an adequate place to build. I am living in a Townhouse with no garage. I have considered renting a space in the industrial park but haven't found anything suitable. Any other ideas? I would love to hear from everyone where did you do you build? Tell us your stories, obstacles, and how you overcame them. Marc

What about a new upgraded Starship that uses duel jet propulsion instead of duel prop? That may appeal to the "jet set" crowd. Maybe even make either an option to the airframe to appeal to a variety of customers. Here is a crazy question: Why are homebuilt craft usually of the "sport" variety (when I say sport I mean smaller and performance oriented) as opposed to someone scratch building a learjet type business jet that can sit 10 people, or whatever. Could such a kit or plans built plane be feasable? Could the Starship ever be produced in the homebuilt market really? I guess you could ask, why would you, but, none the less.... Marc