cncdoc

Hi there, y'all. I was wondering, with good reason, if anyone has ever digitized the wing templates. I know EZ Ahab has, but he is gone for awhile. Has anyone ever done it? Thanks

How about it? Anyone have a 3D Cozy DXF or DWG file? There is a 3D IGES format file on a site mentioned on Marc Z's site, but my CAD program chokes on it. Can someone convert it? Thanks!

That mill looks sweet! 40 taper tooling? I didn't see a HMI, does it use a PC interface? Or, is it not in the picture? I am always looking for an online auction with a CNC 40 taper mill that has something wrong with it (I fix em) that I can get cheap. Every time I find a really good deal, someone beats me by $20! But the newer ones (name brand, Okuma, Haas, Mazak, Fadal, Mits, Mori-Seiki, etc) used are more than new off-brand machines. I tried to get that mmacatuator dot com and the site is gone. What's up with that? I am down the street from "Magnum" about 20 miles. I am building my own gear as well. I have tried several drawings on my "Alibre" CAD program and have had to make changes when I put it to animation. I was going to use a carbon fiber main structure with a trailing arm link. The bottom of the wing is the outer part of the gear and the shape is designed so the airflow assists in the gear lowering, the fail safe position is down and locked. It is taking awhile to design it using different available spring shock designs and actuators. The most difficult part is finding room in the strake for the gear without having to change it's length by mechanical means. I am trying to keep it as simple as possible so there is less points for failure. When I get something definite, I post the drawings in DXF. Otherwise, maybe I can hook up sometime in Punta Gorda, when I get time off. LAter! Back to work!

We know that the design is about as light as you can get, so making it lighter won't help. Putting a big engine on it will help get it off the ground sooner, but doesn't slow it down (yet maintain a reasonable glide angle) unless you install a "Harrier" type duct system which means the thrust from the prop would have to be about 1200 lbs. Not likely. Increasing the wing area. Good. However, the shape of the wing would have to be changed as well. A high lift low speed wing would be shaped like a Hershey bar. The laminar flow high speed wing wing would be right out. Yes, it would be ugly. You could install some major flaps and or wing slots. However, flaps in a tractor type aircraft are placed on the main wing where the CG is and where most of the lift is. Although there is lift on the elevator or "stabilator", in the trailing configuration, there is always going to be enough lift on it as long as the main wing has lift. It takes less airspeed to have an effective elevator than it takes to fly the main wing, even in it's slowest (full flap) configuration. Not so in a canard. The canard must have enough lift to carry it's share of the moment forward of CG which changes with passengers, fuel and baggage, with the least amount being minimum fuel and a pilot. This lift should be produced at an airspeed just a little more than the main wing produces the rest of the lift. Too much more and it will never rotate, any less airspeed than the main wing and it would be prone to main wing stall, which means landing in a different configuration than the pointy end first! This is challenge number 1 for using flaps. The flaps must be on the canard as well as the main wing. As mentioned, the CG changes with the loading of the airplane and fuel burn. So the ratio of lift between main and canard would have to change as well. When using for take-off, the incorrect ratio could produce some surprises. When landing, the flaps would have to be initialized simultaneously and maintain the proper ratio during deployment, otherwise, there could be some (not good) surprises and disappointments. This is challenge number 2. The size and shape of the flaps for the main wing would be easier to figure. The size and shape and method of mechanical deployment would be difficult to engineer for the canard. Too big and the control of the elevator part of the canard would be rendered ineffective. Too small and not enough lift would be provided at low air speed. Much experimentation after much calculation would result in a functional lifting mechanism. (IT's only physics and aerodynamics, it could be done) Of course it would effect the efficiency of the wing which would have to be changed to accomodate a variable wing area, with it's mechanical deployment mechanisms, including a variable ratio adjustment for load and fuel burn CG changes. It would then fly slower when the flaps were deployed but then, unless you kept the raw data and configuration for normal flight before the flaps, you would have to again test THAT configuration after they were installed to make sure that the retracted flaps would not produce dangerous or unpredictable flight characteristics. Keep in mind: The flaps on a tractor type aircraft allow for a small percent of lowering of stall speed ( You dont descend and land at stall speed, but at a safe margin above it.) 15 to 25% reduction in stall speed is pretty good for a light airplane with flaps (wing slots too? Not even going there). If the Varieze landed at 70, it would take a reduction of 50% to get her down at the airspeed you mentioned above. The canard aircraft was designed as a high speed cruiser. The design requires the canard and main wing to have an acceptable margin wherein the delicate balancing act is performed safely. Altering those margins could be disasterous. On the other hand, if you decided to use more wing area and could keep this balancing act within the acceptable margins (reinventing the wheel, I mean wing) you could possibly have an aircraft, albeit an ugly one, that would fill your needs. PS. I spent a lot of time investigating flaps. I was determined to do it and I might some day. But it would only lower stall speed by 10%. I think I would soon make another design than pervert the EZ/COZY for slow speed capability and sacrifice it's top end and useful load carrying ability.

S Sorry O out of L luck or a derivation or alteration thereof utilizing some profanity or other.

Don't be so "narrow" minded my fellow (part time) Cracker! I am not planning on using my Cozy as a 4 place, but a large 2 place or one place with luggage. The Cozy Mk IV can be modified but I am leaving the fuselage as is to take advantage of the sleekness.. (think: Drink holders, flight attendants) If not, the LongEZ does have some advantages when it comes to economy both in cost and performance with a skoesche of extra room for the pilot.

How much is "for cheap"??

I can't say too much about ALL of the materials but I can speak about some of the bigger (in bulk size) things, like foam. Finding the exact material is essential. This takes research and a lot of it. The distributors of DOW foam will not sell to a consumer, only a wholesaler. In FL I had to show my retail merchant certificate to buy bulk foam from the dealer in Tampa. Hexcel with the proper coating is obtainable from other than AS&S and Wicks, but buying in bulk is the only way to get the lower price. If you want MGS epoxy, plan a trip to Ontario Canada or pay out the "wazoo". Or.....find an epoxy with the same properties as MGS that's cheaper. Some things could cost you more time than money, but since time = money you might want to reconsider spending too much time counting pennies. On the other hand, proprietary fiberglass, foam, epoxy, wood and aircraft engines don't exist. (yet) Some other parts, like the metal parts necessary to finish the control system, may cost more time than money unless you have a machine shop at your disposal. The Cozy Girrrrls might be able to help you out. Still:p , you can't build a safe airplane with sub-standard parts. Unsafe airplanes kill folks. They also make the rest of us look bad and may some day make the FAA think twice about letting us build and fly. So more is riding on this than mama's pocket book. There are many of us that are taking awhile to finish, don't mess it up for us! We'll run you till your ankles smoke, all the way from our nursing home!

You mean besides my marathon Cozy MK 4 project and dodging hurricanes in season? Still fixing CNC equipment. I consulted on some robotics systems for a production solid surface countertop installation as a contractor for a machine manufacturer down the street from KOMO in St Cloud, MN (Park Industries). I am still free lance and resisting the offers to be a cog in the gear as an employee of various companies in need of CNC doctors. I probably didn't talk to you as you were in sales, but if there was any problem with any of the scales and their installation or parts, I was usually involved in it. I thought I talked to everyone there. I fought the trend to go to Fagor, which I lost. I can still remember the tone of voice from one of the Heidenhain techs telling me I could troubleshoot the interface box if I only had a 'scope. I said "I got a Tektronix 100mhz dual trace, will that do?" .......yup! Nobody uses the old CRT scopes anymore in field service, even I broke down and bought a Fluke digital. I seldom use it in the proprietary systems I repair. It's mostly board or component replacements for the machines built since 2K. The last time I had an issue I just told the customer to call Auto-Met, they were thrilled afterward (except for the bill). I worked for Gosiger and Jefco in Dayton OH before moving to FL in 1998. I was putting scales on knee mills when Heidenhain first discovered LEDS.. !! I hope you're enjoying retirement and making progress on your project. When I worked for KOMO, I did a lot of redesign engineering in the field. I can't help but to think about how I can make something work better. From my AE days at Purdue (30 years ago) I can truly say that it (the desire to make it better) has only slowed me down in finishing the airframe. I hope that doesn't happen to you!

Hey! Didn't we talk before? I used to be the senior field tech for KOMO. I used to work on the linear scales all the time! I still talk to the techs every once in awhile. Glad to see someone with your credentials and experience in this "pencil line" accuracy "hobby".

Perhaps Jon can use his magic and make a new thread...... Well, I know everyone is thinking it, so I am writing it. Yup, it's the farting pilot. Not good. No where to go.

C'mon guys, doesn't anybody hear the banter from the French guys in the movie "The Holy Grail", "I fart in your general direction......." I didn't think Mssr Rutan stopped selling plans because builders were not following the plans. I believe it was the lack of profit and the abundance of lawsuits, which was probably causing the lack of profit...... From the email posted it appears that the seller of IBIS plans has issues with those who would build not according to his plans. I think I would have issues with someone not following my instructions, especially if they claimed a superior result from all my hard work. Unless my sole reason for selling the plans was fiduciary in nature. Maybe, the issue is a little deeper, which means that, being in a disapproved country for plans sales, support may be even more difficult to get from said seller. Buying from another owner may not improve the situation.

Do you have ideas? Or do you want ideas???

Google Earth saw gibberish and so did I

I thought I read here a 250 lb GIB? Just checking to see if it was a typo. I played Line backer for a semi pro team once and I weighed in at 235. That would throw any C of G, out of whack:scared: