cncdoc

Top o' the day to ya, Do they have Outback Steak houses there? Oh well..... I have had a compressor for years and I wouldn't do without, even if I wasn't building a Cozy. Besides, that gives you an excuse to buy all those cool airtools! (like you need an excuse... ) Ah, what would my life be like now without my 3/8 inch drive air rachet? Anyway, make sure you get a compressor that handles at least 6 SCFM (they measure it in the air that goes IN to the compressor, not out.) or you will be waiting on tools. 9 SCFM is perfect and don't go less than 5 gallons or you will be working the pump off and on. A good setup is a 20 gallon main tank 10 HP motor and a 100 gallon reservoir tank with moisture removal.....OH yeah......is the drool apparent? If you get a sandblaster get extra tips and face and hand protection. The sand WILL end up in your knickers, so plan accordingly....

I was raised in Indianapolis Indiana and lived close to the Indy 500 track in Speedway. As a matter of fact, my address WAS Speedway Indiana. You can't beathe the air in May without smelling "The Race" in that part of the country! It's that time of the year again and from Florida, I can still smell it! I have to look back though, on the early 60's through the mid 70's at Indy when a less "corporate" feel dominated the track and the race car owners and drivers. Nowadays, the cars are worth millions and the driver hasn't seen the cars till practice! If it gets wrecked, they have a half dozen others to take it's place. Twas not always thus... Do you remember when: Jim Hurtibuse drove his "Mallard" with the Offy engine, a hollowed out nose cone with a cooler inside, (with beer in it, chillin')? They had a turbine that blew the snot out of the recip engines? Car drivers actually built their cars? Someone drove a car with a "Novi" engine? If you remember the above you are at least 40 years old... What's this got to do with building a Cozy? Well, back when they allowed it, an average Joe could build a car and enter it into the race. If they didn't have a lot of money and they mortgaged their house or something to finish the car in time for the race, they barely made it. The driver/owner drove his heart out to qualify, and then it was driver against driver and car against car. It was more exciting and personal. A victory was more than just winning a race. Every year, one of these underfinanced entries was dubbed "Indy on a shoestring" It was all they could afford to just get the car into the race. No frills. This doesn't mean that the car was poorer quality than the few corporate sponsored cars, in fact, many mechanics and car designers were given jobs as crew chiefs etc. later as a result of their work and reputation. So how about you? Are you drooling over a "glass panel" ? JD's retractable gear is what you crave, but your wallet is slammed shut on the idea? Does even the electric nose wheel seems a little steep, but the hand crank idea has been been put down so much, you think it may be inferior? I know it seems like some can just order away when the time comes, but some of us have to wait till the cash comes in. There should be a section called "Worth the money" for those of us without unlimited resources who don't want an inferior craft. So how about it? "Cozy on a shoestring"?? Man holding sign at exit ramp " Will work for Cozy avionics"

I think it looks fine. The only thing that I do when I log on is look for new posts. So, it would be cool if the new posts would "rise to the top" you know, sorted by date last accessed. This would also show which threads were being used the most. I don't know if the software can do that though.

Just a thought, You didn't copy the template drawings at Kinko's did you? I did and they were off....

The last time I talked to Jeff, he had gotten the company back and had a couple of techs putting together components in Naples FL. If I remember right, he had some other aircraft building (related) "irons in the fire" and didn't have the AeroCanard part up to speed. The web site hasn't been updated for awhile, but he will return phone calls and I believe he is still taking orders and building parts... An update might be a good thing..

By the time you get your license, you could be halfway through building. Here in Florida, there are many builders and the weather is great for building all year`round. So with the Cozy being one of the fastest canard homebuilt planes that an average Joe can build at home, you gotta ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya? (Clint Eastwood voice) Or I would suggest going for your "beginners" pilot license by going to a local FAA physical examiner, let them check you out (If you flunk a physical, you would be building a Cozy for someone else to fly while you could fly in it ) Then you could take a few lessons and see if it's for you. If it is and you can spare 30K to 40K bucks in the next 2 or 3 years and you have a place to build, then I would go for it! (I can say that because I did go for it. Of course I'm not a 0 time pilot...wait. What is a 0 time pilot? Isn't that like 0 time pregnant? Either you is or you ain't..) but my suggestion could be tainted by my opinion... In any case, welcome to the Forum! or as we say when we're on your coast..."jump in! The water's fine!"

Thanks Rick! (may I call you Rick? or MR Maddy?) I read the posts there with interest, but I didn't really find a consensus of opinion. I noted two themes: A. Whether or not holes induced drag. B. Whether or not speed reduction was the intent of design. My thoughts: (Digging out Aerodynamic Engineering Studies handbook circa 1975 Purdue University) A. 1. Holes induce as much drag if not more than flat plate design depending on size, placement and quantity. (Designed to create turbulence in a fluid) 2. Structural integrity of design also depends on size, placement and quantity. (the holes are not the weak area nor are the area between the holes) 3. Plans design "Landing Brake" places maximum stress during steep angle deployment at or near hinge area at extreme outward ends of hinge. 4. Maximum estimated drag advantage over flat plate: 12 - 15 % 5. Worth the trouble of making aerodynamically efficient during retraction: Doubtful. B. 1. Power=airflow=air over wings= lift = nose higher (speed = power x AOA) Drag=less airflow=less air over wings=less lift= nose lower (attitude= AOA +Drag x power) 2. Almost anyway you look at it, to get the nose lower (for landing) you have to lower the airspeed (increase drag/reduce power). The Landing Brake being forward of CG but aft of the canard, allows it to increase the overturning moment and increases the need for control pressure on the canard to maintain a consistent approach slope while slowing the airspeed and decreasing lift. In an acceleration (powered) descent, or an excessive speed deployment, a "flat plate" landing brake extended with not much less than 60% angle of deflection could theoretically cause more lift than drag, whereas the "holy brake" would still cause more drag than lift. So holes would help if you wanted to slow down when you are going faster, but won't slow you down faster or make you slower. So, if Burt wanted the nose low for landings, it took more than an after-thought "landing-brake", to do the trick. The landing brake is integral to the Rutan design that Nat carried through in the Cozy. So in the end, everyone was right..sort of. And wrong, partly. I am glad I didn't throw away my textbooks.... Once again an exercise in frugality.... Hole? nope.

Now I'm confused. We have an airbrake because we don't put holes in them to make them speed brakes, or we don't have speed brakes because we don't put holes in them. If we did put holes in them, would they become speed brakes? Or would they be holy air brakes? I don't think I would want to slow down too fast anyway, good flight planning makes sudden stops an infrequent manuever...but it would be nice to slow down some In other words, would putting holes in them have an advantage of any kind? Un-confuse me.

The one thing I enjoy about reading other builder's experiences is that when there is a common thread of one kind or another, I can use that information as a way to make improvements or alter the way (the plans show) I should build. Mr Slade and I had a short discussion about a particular area where there was a seeming mistake. Did you ever notice how the amount of spar cap tape is almost always too little when used to fill the spar gap when using plans specifications depth? Is it Wicks or AS shorting us (ususally the same amount)? John didn't necessarily think so. But he did offer an alternative explanation: When the plans were developed, EZ-poxy was being used. It is much thicker than the new and improved MGS product. Using the newer, stronger(?) thinner epoxy leaves more room between plys. Right? IF so, that leaves a few questions: 1. Is it better to keep the original amount of spar cap plys and raise the floor of the cavity so that no additional (weight) material be added to keep the wing surface smooth? 2. Is the additional spar cap tape necessary or is it better to have the additional strength the extra tape affords? 3. Has anyone got any "hard" numbers on what the depth would be taking into account different epoxy? 4. Could the plans be wrong? 5. Could John's observation be wrong? 6. Is it quicker to Chicago than by bus, or should I take a lunch? See as Chapter 10 is looming ominously on my horizon, I'd like to get some additional info....even though spar cap tape isn't that $$$! and I could use it later.... Thank y'all...

One more thing... The reason I wrote "Enjoy the Dust" in my signature, is because: 1. Dust already signed "enjoy the build" , I enjoy reading about his exploits (and exploitations) and I figured a clever person may see the sideways parody.. 2. More importantly; I did some sanding and discovered that all composite materials are composed of is this: Tightly compacted and fused DUST! The act of sanding releases the dust into it's primal form and thus it's volume increases. So, from a very small amount of solid matter (needing to be sanded) an abundance of dust issues forth (fifth even). SO. Seeing as this project will require a good deal of sanding, I thought it to be a helpful reminder to all that dust will be an integral part of your life for the next few months/years. It gets into every nook and cranny, in your ears, hair and it even finds it's way into your knickers . So, if you dont learn to like/tolerate dust , you're not going enjoy the build. If you are a obsessive/compulsive duster, you're going to be VERY busy..... I am now finishing the landing brake. I wondered why the brake doesn't have holes in it like jet fighters have in their speed brakes? I guess I will have to go to another thread for that one.... I must be off...

Thanks for the tips guys... The "flox" comes in plastic bags as does the "GB" (Glass bubbles) which looks similar at first glance. The flox has a more shredded look. The 16 oz "cups" look more like the bowls you get when you order take-out chili from a "greasy spoon" restaurant. The paint brushes are refugees from the "Big Lots" truck and were probably not left by accident. The "Sticky Stuff" pump actually looks like it could be worth a couple of hundred bucks (adjusting for inflation, near-sightedness and sporadic, stress-induced voluntary mental retardation and/or drinking whichever comes first). It comes with directions and stuff. (and an advertisement for some scales in the $100 + price range, so you can check the calibration of the pump..............am I supposed to be rich or something......$120 to check my $250 pump for my $60K airplane....I think I need some $20 aspirin and some $2 Evian (naive backwards) water to wash it down.....I should have been born rich instead of so darn good-looking, at least, that's what my wife says..) I have had this "boat" (as my wife calls it, even though she knows it's an incomplete aircraft) gracing the innards of my garage since it flew home from California in the back of a Ford pickup back in December 2003. I have danced back and forth between what I wanted to do with it and what I have done with it (Dreams...retracts....full glass panel....exotic powerplants...etc.) after gathering a couple of engines and peripherals, I decided (after seeing John Slade's Cozy during a taxi test) to finally order the next couple of chapters (10-14) and get this show on the road....er...taxiway.....whatever. I owe it to the guy who parted with it tearfully to finish it. And, moreover, to finally prove to all onlookers that what I am building in my garage, is not a @%^#BOAT!! I will, of course, still be active here on the Canard Zone. I will be still building in the shadows of the predecessors mentioned here, not the least being John Slade, Rick Maddy and Marc Zeitlin who have documented their sojourn into flying machine builderdom and Dust who is a few steps behind in real time. The others who post here add to the overall experience and put to rest doubts and worries, and give encouragement when the altitude is irrigating. I value the input from EVERYONE even the opinionated (they don't know any better than to say what they think). I hope we all can find the satisfaction that the flying builders have found and NOT find the problems they found by listening to their experiences. In the immortal words of every pilot I know (on takeoff) "Here we go!" Or as Sir Edmund Hillary said: " It's BLOODY cold up here, where's my Gin bottle? How am I supposed to get on with these blasted guides taking breaks every 10 minutes or........... Whoops! Wrong immortal words.... If I find the right ones I'll put them on straight away, meanwhile....... I've got plane to make. By the by...... Don't just read this and go on... stop in and give me an "AMEN" or something...c'mon!!! benchwarmers! builders! lurkers! engineers! (break code) honk if you love......????

They are all gone... Yep! No excuses.. I can't even find one to give to Mr. Slade now. The UPS man just delivered my shiny new "Sticky Stuff" epoxy dispenser along with a couple of gallons of (full #%@%$ retail) MGS resin and hardener and another whole box of other goodies, sitting on my bench waiting for attention. The last time I felt like this I was standing at the top of a long, tall waterslide.... So, I guess I am going to be busy making an airplane for awhile. For the "Best Practices" post guys who read this: "Can't we all just get along"? Oh great, if I want to make sure my "sticky stuff " is accurate, I have to buy a scale anyway! Note to self: No nose picking during layups... Thanks to y'all...I'll check in from time to time.. Kevin..

The spar gets the most treatment. I would do the gear between the spar and the stake plans. There are hydraulic lines and additional layups involved as well. There is a complete wheel cavity enclosure that comes with it that is definately post spar. BTW..I hope your main focus is on how the retracts (infinity alias JD) are more suited to sloppier landing sites THAN the plans gear. The speed and coolness factor have to be a "given" because nobody has yet to publish the findings on either one. All pictures of "full" retract Cozys are on the gear (on the ground). I would saw the gear off of John's plane for the educational factor, but I am afraid he would not allow it. Besides, as fast as he taxis, I would have to do a Keanue Reeves " Speed" re-enactment to get the job done and my toes would doubtless become much shorter in the process. So I will have to wait till somebody actually flies retractably.... Till then we must all wait patiently and hope JD sees the price of his gear some day and says "OOPS! it's too high! I meant 2600$ not 5600$" I'm not holding my breath though, he is from California and is quite proud of his product. Like many other things in California, there is only one and the competition is still years behind (or in line to pay). If you wish to see the coolness factor, take a picture of a Cozy in Flight and smudge away the gear with a photo editing program. It won't tell you how fast it can go, or how it lands on a grass field but it will show you the "coolness" factor. Sometimes, that and $5600 will be all that it takes.....

Hmmm, this is rather interesting. I think it's good to see someone interested in putting an inflow of information in a searchable repository. I do that every time a put a file in my file cabinet. But I had to organize it first. I had to label it so that when I got more information, I had a pre-determined place for it. If I had too much information in one file I had to sort it and label it again in sub-catagories. My system works because the inflow is steady and predictable. The inflow of information on this site is sporadic and "liquid". It is a difficult task to "label" each new "file" of information we want to keep for future reference. Dust's method of tagging each "file" of notable interest is crude but effective. However, it would require organization and more labels. I think that with the brain power we have here on the forum we could think of a workable idea to use the data on hand while funneling new info into the proper searchable format. I appreciate Mr. Hicks thoughts..(but, where's the fun in reading all that stuff?: ) for basic build and design features I agree. But obtaining and perusing the data can be time consuming and frustrating (a peek is worth a thousand scans...) knowing someone who knows the answers is better than having the books..if you're in a hurry. If you're waiting for something, then you may have time for research and documentation. I like the idea of asking questions and getting different answers, conservative, liberal, speculative and literal. When building an airplane from plans, people (men generally, but women tend to have similar thought patterns) generally take care in each step and most have a fervent desire to have full knowledge of the next step. This process involves more than simple curiousity. It encompasses an effort to sweep all available resources to obtain a satisfying answer, an answer such an individual can live with. Ultimately, we choose which answer we accept and which we reject. But who would go to a car dealer who only sold black or white cars? (Unless you're a State Police vehicle buyer). In some cases there is a black or white answer. But this is Experimental Aircraft building. We all know what that means. We experiment with design, methods, and materials. We don't experiment with life. So there is a line. The purpose of this forum should not be limited to data storage and collating, but should be allowed to include real time exploratory discussion and discovery while keeping in focus the goals of the individual builders. We are, after all, human. I enjoy the human aspect of it. For instance: Who didn't enjoy reading John Slade's account of first flight. It was a 5 star rated thread. The actual data value was very small as it was a personal depiction of operation. The actions were not able to be duplicated by others. But I would have scalped somebody if they removed the thread for lack of building value . I don't think hard and fast rules are going to get us anywhere. This forum is undergoing constant evolution. I think it's good to try to sort out the "best practices". It would have to be from those who have tried at least one way of doing it (plans verbatum). To have the opinion of those who are inexperienced would be tentamount to 6 year old kids voting on the best way to procreate. Therefore, I would urge all of us to contemplate the purpose of each post. A post with obvious practical value for fellow builders should be noted by SOMEBODY for future readers either by the one posting or the reply poster or by someone who realizes the answer is a "keeper"..... We have come such a long way in both aircraft building and design and inter-builder communication. Things are changing constantly as to equipment and technology. This is a good place to keep up. If we do it right, this forum can be both fun and informational. There is such a thing as a "tool" that can be fun right?? (or is that another thread....or forum??) That's my humble opinion ....... "Doctor" Kevin.

After reading all the ballyhoo about the "Sticky Stuff" epoxy pump/dispenser, I decided to plunk down the dough and buy one. Since I am using the MGS system (also much ballyhooed), I have the advantage of using the fast or slow hardening activators. I can also mix the two for any combination of fast or slow. However, what if I have the hopper filled or containing my favorite mix, and I want to speed up or slow down the cure time. How do you proceed? Very curious indeed.

Well, of all the days to turn down work in West Palm.... Congrats... Nothing. It's the best thing to ever happen on a maiden voyage. She's a fine ship sir, a fine ship indeed! The owl had to initiate her. :D

Believe it or not, the wildcard works (not very well...but it works) I'd like to see the search at least 3 letters. Filter out non-noun words and voila! you're golden! At least in theory. Keep up the good work Jon! and Thanks! Kevin

I picked mine up and heaved it into the back of my Ford F-150. It was a BEAR! It weighs close to 350 lbs with all the goodies. If you need a strap, use a seat belt from an old junk car and tie it through the lift rings. It WILL roll! So tie it down good! If you have time and a metric wrench set, it will take about 20 minutes to get the exhaust manifold off. The rest of it is tied in with the wiring harness and is hard to seperate. Keep the oil filter and motor mount on and keep it upright or it will leak oil and/or coolant. Of course, if it is a short block you're cool already. Have fun! (eh!)

I guess I will have to think about a parking brake now. I wonder if I make an extra large speed brake so I can put my feet on the ground (Fred Flintstone style) so I can hold her back during run-up?? :O

I found the answer to my own question in the cozy builders archives! John Slade once again giving the engineers a run for their money:D . So if you're curious about the strength of your epoxy, what TG does for you and how to post cure, you can read this It's a little long, but well worth reading. So tg or not tg? TG of course.. but not the highest or lowest...but just as Goldilocks said: "Just right". She was eaten by bears though wasn't she?

I had to bring this thread back up. John's almost there. You can read his exploits on Chapter 28 After personally seeing this plane and John's work on it, it's pretty exciting to see what is next....

Im rebuilding a 13B The Cosmo engine could be a 13B or a 20B, They are the same design with the 20B (2000cc instead of 1300cc) having 3 rotors instead of 2. The only problem is weight and balance and different mounting strategy. As you probably know, the Cosmo is a model of car that came with several engines. I don't think it was sold in the US in 1993. Rebuilding is EZ but be careful of out of tolerance rotors and cases. There are several sites and reputable rebuilders and parts suppliers on the web, most of them build for racing. Street porting is good, strip (race) porting will work at high RPM but has trouble at idle (taxi problems) The rebuilding kits are easy, but be careful of do-it-yourself porting. If you have done port polishing and other intake mods on other engines, it wont be a problem though. Rotor bearings and apex seals cannot be "slopped" and there are several little tips and tricks for keeping case bolts in one piece and optimizing cooling passages. All in all, if you have a good amount of experience in rebuilding engines (successfully) IMHO I say go fo it. If not, call Bruce. Also, I was warned about the time factor being added to the total build time. It counts as build time, and the more goodies you add (turbo etc) the more it adds to the build. Non-turbos need mufflers, turbos need intercoolers....yadda yadda yadda..blah blah blah. I have yet to crack the case I mine but I have already done a couple of them so I didn't hesitate. I will try to add some info on my Maddy site when I get to it.

Speaking of cncdoc, (who's he?)how's things in Wichita? I haven't been there for awhile (isn't it borderline iconoclastic building a Cozy in tin can alley? ) I used to live there (in Hotels) went to Beech (now Raytheon) Cessna and Boeing Vendors (Gibbs etc) and the Outback Steakhouse for dinner.. Things didn't change for a long time for GA there until the Starship and every new version of the Citation. Glad to know there's a Boeing survivor. I cringe evertime I ride an Airbust. As Dust says: Enjoy the build (As "Captain Ron says "I'm gonna") Kevin (Formerly of KOMO machine ...ring a bell?)

Ditto... I check my email...I check Canard Zone.. Thanks. Beer is optional but offered nonetheless. Kevin

I use shrink wrap to protect my plexiglas studio windows. If you layer it, it can protect against most "poking, scraping" stuff. 2 layers is usually enough. It is easy to put on and easy to remove. I dont know if it's "Dust" proof, but is IS dustproof. If you have concerns about your sander poking through, you can put duct tape over the shrink wrap and it protects pretty well and comes off with the shrink wrap. But what do I know? I have been married twice. back to work... I wonder when my "sticky stuff" will get here??