mlefebvre

Any guidance on insuring a cozy? What companies are you guys using? What kind of rates are you seeing? As an aside, if one were to "buy" a Cozy instead of building one, is financing possible if the craft is insurable? Marc

Ditto... I edited mine too to remove personal info. Just name and plane info.

After much discussion and searching the internet for ideas and what not, I think I have come to agree with most that the best idea is to modify the strakes to have removable tanks that can be attatched at the ends (Much like Rutans Long-EZ wit the torpedos under the wings). So, the next logical question would be, where is the best place to find some design ideas about how to go about doing this. Do you think contacting Dick Rutan about his Long-EZ mod is appropriate or is there a better idea? Does anyone have any ideas on how best to do this? How do you do the fuel management from these removable tanks? Seperate sump I assume, but how to best incorperate it into fuel system. This seems like the best idea cause then I can putz around the Islands with out the extra hassle and risk, and just attach these when needed for the few times I need to go long distances to the mainland. Marc

I also noticed on John Slade's registry site that there is a guy who is building a TWIN COZY: WEB: None NAME: David V. Coscio MODEL: Highly modified Mark IV twin pusher REG: none FLYING: no STAGE: 10 WORKING: Wings TODO: Canopy,winglets,control systems, strakes,cowlings,engines and electrical ENGINE: Two lycoming 0-320's 160 hp each HP: 320 PROP: two three bladed props MODS: Stretched fuselage 8" behind front seat bulkhead,lengthened nose 18", Electric nose gear, Velocity type retractable main gear, cs spar 24"wider and beefed up for the weight one additional engine, rear seat 20 gal sump, total fuel 100 gals,canopy hinges forward, no rear windows. FIRSTFLT: n/a HOURS: n/a His email is listed but bounces. Does anyone know of this guy and an alternate way to contact him? Thanks. Marc

This may be a silly question from my ignorance, but, isnt Central States Association for those who live in the "Central States"? Is there a west coast association as well? It does seem like the central states are the epicenter of the homebuilt world, however. Marc

WICKED!! That's exactly what I am talking about!! So kewl... I wonder if that guy is on this forum cause I would love to hear about the impact on performance, range, etc... What the pros and cons have turned out to be. For my cozy I would love to do that as I want it to be a trans-pacific flyer for me and having an extra powerplant is the kind of redundancy I would need for extra safety, although, I am sure a single powerplant would probably make the trip, but, cant help adding extra margin of safety. Maybe I should drop that guy a line and inquire more about it. Or maybe invite him here to post about it. Does anyone here know him or have an email address for him? Thanks. Marc

Hello All, Just throwing another idea out there for discussion. Has anyone attempted a twin engine cozy? I saw that there was a cozy built in south america that had a single axis twin prop, but wondered if anyone attempted one in the same spirit as the Beech Starship? Marc

I'm looking for a list of magazines out there for experimental and homebuilt aircraft. Can you post a list with links if possible? Marc

It looks like a great option for economical and efficient operation. I wonder how you handle the JetA/Diesel mix? How would you decide what ratio to use? Does it imply that it can be 100% either? I am considering increasing the range of the aircraft and this deffinately is a boost if it comes through for the experimental market as described. How does the price compare to a Lycoming? How about weight differential? Marc

Interestingly, after plugging in all the values for the COZY performance specs into the Flight Planning Software, a trip from Kahului Airport on Maui (OGG) to San Francisco (SFO) (which happens to be the closest point between the west coast and Maui), works out to: 2029 miles in total, for a total trip time of 12hrs and 50min, and would require 78 gallons of fuel. Based on that, I think my target fuel capacity should be around 100gal for safety. 100 gallons gives me 16hrs and 40min of flight time based on the performance specs, which gives about 4 hrs of extra. Maybe its overkill, but, I like a nice safety margain for such an adventure. Marc

It provided some of the data points, but not all. I could not ascertain from your data: Climb Fuel Burn Rate (gal/hr): Rate of Descent (Ft/Min): Descent Fuel Burn Rate (gal/hr): unless this can be extrapolated from your data points, I wasnt able to determine these at gross weight. Marc

Is there a weight penalty with diesel being more dense? Ie. 100gal of diesel will weigh X, and 100gal of JetA will weigh Y, where X > Y? Which would affect the amount of usable weight that can be added minus the weight of fuel. Thanks for the tips on the diesel. I will keep my eyes on that as a possibility in the future. Marc

I have been playing with a flight plan software package and I wanted to program a standard COZY MkIV into the software to model some flight plans. Could you guys provide me with the performance specs of the cozy AT GROSS for: Rate of Climb (Ft/Min): Indicated Climb Speed (Kts): Climb Fuel Burn Rate (Gal/Hr): Default Cruise Altitude (Ft): Cruise TAS (Kts): Cruise Fuel Burn Rate (Gal/Hr): Rate of Descent (Ft/Min): Indicated Descent Speed (Kts): Descent Fuel Brun Rate (Gal/Hr):

Marc, Thanks for your clarification. Since I am not yet in build mode, I hadnt realized there was dead space available in the strakes. I got the impression that they actually increased the size of the strakes. Be that as it may, I still wonder if there is any merit to investigating the idea of increasing the length of the strakes which could add lift (gross weight capabilities), range, and fuel tank size. Also, in regards to the 3000 mile range, yea, I dont think I would want to fly that either, however, if you guys remember, I am island bound on Maui, Hawaii and want a plane I can take to the west coast and back with my wife if need be. And is the whole reason I am considering this "range" issue at all. Regards, Marc

What is the general consensus on getting the most hours per gallon of fuel, which in effect would extend the range of the aircraft. What kind of engine management is possible to increase the efficiency? What about engine choices to preserve POWER but increase efficiency? You may have noticed that I have posted similar querries elsewhere in this forum but attacking the problem from a design point of view, now, I would like to explore this from a power plant point of view. Marc

I am revisting the idea of extending the range of the Cozy and wondered if the strakes themselves could be modified to increase tankage rather than taking up additional cargo/person space. Could the length of the strakes be increase a couple of feet which would increase tankage, which could increase lift for the additional weight, which could solve the problem. We are probably getting into the area that an aeronautical engineer may need to help answer but what gave me this idea is that I stumbled onto a NOAA website about their "custom" Long-EZ (http://www.noaa.inel.gov/Capabilities/longEZ/) where they increased the size of their strakes to accomodate more fuel to increase range. Here is another interesting link for this plane: http://www.noaa.inel.gov/Capabilities/longEZ/pdf/N3ROwnersManual.pdf They were able to increase tankage up to 73 gal total, with an option of another 30 gal in a ferry tank if necessary for a total of 103 gal. This allows the plane to fly over 3000 miles without refueling. They also were able to increase gross take off weight to 1800lbs with the increase in the size of the strakes and use of a Lycoming O-320 engine. What are your thoughts on this? Marc

Hello All.... Looking for SQ2000 builders and flyers out there. I know there are a few out there and would be great if we had our own area to discuss all things about this model. Marc

One thing that attracted me to the SQ is purely asthetic(sp?) value that it is so rounded in shape and doesnt have the flat bottom and sides. Very aerodynamic looking. Almost like the front of a F-16. Probably not a very worth reason but deffinately caught my eye. I am still undecided but will continue on my quest for info. Marc

Talk about the ultimate canard design, isnt the Starship, pure beauty in motion. Check out this link: http://www.bobscherer.com/Pages/Starship.htm This plane is the reason I got interested in canards in the first place. Too bad they dont make this beauty anymore. Any other commercial applications of this design out there? I think I saw a jet version once in a photo. Marc

Thanks to all for the responses. I have many of the same concerns that you guys had about the SQ2000 but still am quite intrigued. I dont mind the kit build option over the scratch built providing the its a quality kit with manufacturer support. I will contact as many builders as I can find and see what the skinny is on this boat. As far as your offer to add a SQ2000 forum section that would be great! Maybe it will draw them out of the wood work (or is that sanding and filling). Marc

It seems that most of you out there are of the COZY variety, probably cause this was hosted by the Cozy Aircraft Company up till now. I am pretty sold on the design and builder support and all but have to ask about other options out there. I have stumbled upon the SQ2000 from KSL Composites and wondered if any of you have ANY experience with this company, the design, or ANY info out there other than whats posted on their website? I am hoping this doesnt become a religious discussion as I know there are a couple of Velocity, Berkut, LongEZ, AeroCanard and modified Cozy builders out there, so, hopefully I can get some well rounded responses. Maybe as an addition to this thread you guys could say WHY you choose the Cozy/Velocity/LongEZ/Berkut/AeroCanard/SQ2000/Etc... to build over other designs no matter which one it is? Marc

I know this is an old debate but it has been a while according to the archives and have read a few webpages discussing the past customer service issues with Aircraft Spruce. Does anyone have any current experiences to relate regarding the customer service? I am going to be starting the build soon and am getting all my ducks in a row and Aircraft Spruce seems to have all the chapters laid out and can be purchased in bulk as you go and seem very organized. I also read that they are taking over Cozy ownership. However, I have also read about past nightmares with customer service and many have switched to Wicks as a result. What are the current experiences that you builders are having out there? I have also read that A.S. is cheaper than Wicks but when it comes to customer service, that can be priceless, especially when in a bind. Marc

Any good links out there regarding vortex generators? Can you tell me more about these? Thanks. Marc

Is anyone using vaccuumm bagging techniques in your epoxy layups? I figure this is a great way to get deeper total coverage and less weight. What are your thoughts on that? Marc

Dust, to answer your earlier question, yes, its the same article. From the article it states: "The configuration of the airplane tested had the standard 3 Vortilons on each wing leading edge with three roughly equally spaced flow fences between the outboard end of the aileron and the winglet. The shape of each fence does not appear to be critical but it is believed that it is important that they exist on top of, behind and below the wing surface to completely isolate the section outboard of the fence from any span wise flow that is developed inboard of it. " which seeems to imply their optimal location. If you go to this link, http://www.glassovercast.com/goc/mainthangar/tefence/layout.jpg you will see that the location recomended and angle of fences. This seems like a straight forward improvement which should show some immediate benefits for the COZY design. The article goes on to state the benefits as: "The overall change in low speed performance was remarkable. It was immediately noticed that take- off distance is reduced 10-15% climb rate is improved 20% and most noticeably approaches can be flown at least 10-15% slower resulting in a significantly shorter landing distance, nearly 30% less. There was no measurable decrease in top speed." with one drawback: "The only negative observation is a reduced roll response at the lower speeds, probably due to lower dynamic pressure." Marc