cncdoc

That is a VERY good deal for a III.

I think it's cool Richard Pryor is building! I thought he was really good with Gene Wilder in the movies! I'm sorry Richard. I couldn't help it. You probably never get that in real life. Have you ever seen the movie, "Silver Streak"? It's a classic. But then again, so is the Cozy! Have fun building!

I'm gratified TT#4 went well. I'll be in the neighborhood all week. I'm setting up a machine east of I95 on Southern. I will drop in on you from time to time. Let me know if you need me to bring anything. BTW My wife bought a 2004 Nissan Altima (new) the 2.5 liter (or litre to you) developes 175 bhp @ 4000 rpm. The 3.5 gives a whole 250 bhp @ 5K and it's normally aspirated. It's about 100 lbs difference. Just some interesting information on recips and what their doing as opposed to what 7 liter a/c engine does, and what your rotary should do.

I know I read somewhere about the TG of Epoxies (particularly MGS) The 285 tg was well over 200F whereas the 335 (cheaper) had a tg of 140 to 180F If I remember right, this had something to do with the post cure temps. The general idea I got from the whole thing was that if you post cure the epoxy at xxxF (temperature) then it will remained cured (hard) at or below that temperature for the rest of it's life. The "expert" in question also spouted rheotoric to the effect that cure temps over 200F were unrealistic in real life and somewhat overkill, as it would be difficult if not impossible to cure at upper tg without melting stuff (foam i'd imagine). I tried the search engine here, but it's been drinking and wouldn't give me a straight answer and insists on making me play my "wildcard". But I had it hands down with a "full house" and a "straight"! It misdirected me on purpose and landed me square in the middle of a sanding discussion. I countered with another "wild card" and it "saw" my play and raised me into the "engine discussion" area. I folded and lost the kitty. The cards were marked. I accused it of cheating and drew my "9" first! I then realized I was about to shoot my laptop. So I decided to circumvent the dishonest gambler search engine and plead my case here. computers always win anyway. unless you shoot them first.

Thank you for asking..... My AKA says it all...CNC Doctor. When CNC (Computer Numeric Control) machines get sick, I make them all better. I get dirty and sometimes go home with metal chips and shavings and smelling like a dill pickle or worse (from cutting coolant) or MDF dust in my jockeys (itchy stuff) and occasionally I help my sibling with his business which is electronics related. I own my own company and get time off occasionally, but I can lose business when I take an extended vacation. Hopefully this airplane will allow less windshield time and more time at home, while flying and getting cockpit time! A good trade off in anyone's book.... Now back to work......

Hey there: Where you are vacationing is barely in Florida the ones that I know of that are building are closer to the South and West and South East. I am 5 hours drive (one way) John is about 3 hours (but he is almost done). At least I wanted to respond to your post to let you know it didn't fall on deaf ears. (you know, move the post up a little)

"I see" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and ....saw:D So the guys without the winglets may look better, but low speed performance is compromised eh? I don't think Im going to get all excited about making sure the winglet is exact. I may to modify it a little.... Thanks... It's funny reading that 25 year`old stuff, like it was yesterday.. Kevin

Well, I was going to suggest pressure bagging because there isn't any vacuum but instead you use the squeegee to apply pressure to the plastic "bag" thus using pressure to push excess epoxy out without letting air in. But I see you already are using "laminate bagging". Darn. A day late and 1.50 short (inflation). It takes me longer to think of stuff.

So the winglets aren't really aerodynamically necessary? They are more of a sacrificial "ski" in the event of a landing boo-boo. Maybe I should put a wheel in it ?? I have read some of those forums. At first, I was impressed at how much the information appeared to sound useful and accurate. But, the more I read, the more I could see that a lot of it was opinion based on others' opinion and data taken from 50 year old technology and blanket conclusions from others' mistakes. For instance: You say you wish to do something not in the plans. They say don't do that because something won't work right if you do. You say you want to anyway, then the local expert chimes in and castigates you and makes you look like a retard for even thinking about the intended "deviation from plans". That having been said, I have found them useful for obtaing materials and interpolating and extrapolating flight and performance data from those who fly and those who are modifying their aircraft. The flow fences I intend to use (although not in the plans). There are other changes I may make as well, but I want to get it done so I can fly it. I may make another one and make it fancy, I bet I could do it in half the time. But thanks Chuck, I appreciate your input. You always make sense.

My opinion of the lower winglet appearance was not the poopy part. It was that the design seems to not be optimized for it's function (That, as indicated above, it seems, was for low speed lift enhancement) that's all. I always thought the straight down skeg design was to give stabilty during yaw manuevers. It's obvious that the rudders have to be where they are because it would be a major pain to re-engineer the whole wing again and figure what to do with the ailerons. That picture of the Firefly didn't show a turned down wing tip either. Maybe in keeping with Burt's KISS method, the winglet is just enough to function, any less and it wouldn't work, any more and it wouldn't be Burt. I'm not Burt though:p

My only question is why the aerodynamically "poopy" looking design (no offense intended)? It would seem that a more STOL style tip would be effective in converting spanwise flow (like the tips on the canard only inverted). It wouldn't have to be as aggressive as a STOL design, but I would think that it would be a better airfoil than the skeg protrusion that it calls for. That's just MHO however. If it's simple and it works, then fine. The rather elegant shape of the wing is going to end up being assailed with vortilons and flow fences anyway - in the name of low speed manueverability. So, aesthetically speaking, it's already on it's way toward the porcelain convenience. I was trying to save as much as possible from geekdom. Thanks once again...

has anyone noticed that many pictures of Cozys don't show the lower winglets? Look at Brocks page. It shows a Cozy with no lower winglets. Personally, I like the looks sans winglet. But with the vertical stabilizer as big as it is, is the winglet necessary? If it is to add lift to the main lifting body at the tip like a flow fence, wouldn't the shape be different? I know, I know. It's in the plans. But so is Nat's admonition to use the manual nose gear retraction. Yet how many opt for the JW electric? HA! I got ya there! So, where is the love for the lower winglet here? Brock's page pic with no lower winglet

I've flown many a tin can and I can never remember throwing in ballast. I think it's mostly because conventional (elevator in rear) aircraft allows for the pilot to be sitting near the CG. The only critical spot was the baggage compartment which was aft CG and made more of a difference in the weights and balances than anything (even gross, which is occasionally fudged in small amounts as the fuel/weight is burned off in flight, but not approvingly by FAA or good, clean-nosed throttle jockeys everywhere). So the other answer would be to fly from the back seat (like many a bi-plane), or have an extra set of controls back there. Or put in a hot tub. OK. Just seeing if you're paying attention. The only other solution would be to shift the canard (they move the wings on an F-14 don't they?) or wear Frankenstein shoes with lead in the soles or put an adjustable auxiliary trim tab on the canard to offset the lift (that's playin' with fire there ain't it? But I took Aerodynamic engineering in HS (Ben Davis HS Indianapolis IN followed by a degree at PU in Lafayette) I could look at my transcripts on a short final, you know, the final, final) which could do the same trick to the ever-faithful lifting airfoil (fulcrum of the teeter-totter) as weighting the nose. Or I could not diet and make a little extra "butt room" in the left seat and only allow petite ladies to occupy the right seat. Where's the down side of that? Pondering......

I think the experimental experiment of a wider fuselage (especially the front seat area:rolleyes: ) would be just the ticket. Now the ironic part: It seems that for an airplane you build by throwing things up in the air to see what comes back down and thus determine what you are going to put in it, there has to be an alternative to putting weights in it to compensate for too much weight. I mean what am I going to be piloting, a flying "teeter-totter"??? That having been said, at least the weight in the front should have a useful function: Coolant reservoir, oil reservoir, BEER reservoir (except that drinking the reservoir means you can't fly home alone - which may be a solution all by itself:bad: ) fuel reservoir (except if you burn off of it you may be flaring before approach).. Anyway, keep those thinking mills a-going.... Kevin

I was thinking about moving the nosewheel forward about 6 inches making the nose longer and allowing room for stuff where stuff is cramped. And room to add weight. I could put the engine on rollers and I could tie a string to it and if the CG was too far back I could pull on the string and move it forward.. Or I could just pull your leg now..

It's a scant 2.5 hours drive North (brrr cold) my brother wanted to fly his Commanche up there but I talked him out of it. So we are hoofing it. We are going to hit all the high spots and go home. So 1 more going.

Yes ...and what a wonderful Sunday! I wish I was there John! I was instead with a step-daughter 9 months along in another project equally as unpredictable in Ft Lauderdale. I wish I had as much technological experience in pediatrics as I do in internal combustion. See you Monday! Maybe a Grandfather! Kevin aka cncdoc

Rotary power.... All you have to do is mention that phrase and you polarize the (mostly canard designed) homebuilt community. However, I wanted to be able to discuss (by virtue of this forum) the reasons why builders are opting for the rotary (and don't say because John is doing it, although that may be reason enough... ) engine in their projects. Why open the discussion again? I think there are a few misconceptions about the advantages/disadvantages of using a seemingly superior converted auto design engine. Discussion may help review and bolster confidence (or not) and may help to lessen psychological procrastination. So, this isn't about whether or not you are using rotary power (as in 12A 13A 13B 20B Wankel Mazda, Pratt and Whitney doesn't count), you have decided to use rotary power because.........??? So is it because of cost? Weight? Power? Are there a few tricks up your sleeve? Why would you go rotary? (hint: Most Lycoming advocates assume $$$ is the motivation) running to the side after lighting the fuse... Kevin

The dreaded feeling of someone else watching you flying your airplane.. It takes a lot of guts to share that moment. I for one appreciate it, for the furtherance of the craft and the other non-technical feelings evoked while watching wings take flight. Thanks! Kevin

HEY John, Are you there? I think we're all waiting for the results of the next taxi test, you know, the "tightened bolts" NEW and IMPROVED taxi test! With less vibration and more bounce per ounce... Do you know how to keep a Cozy builder in suspense???? YOU DO! because WE ARE!

If I could get free rides in a Cozy, I wouldn't have to build one, wood eye?

So, it would seem that belonging to an organization that describes what I am doing in my garage would be a good thing, right? You read the description of member benefits and it doesn't blow your skirt up (so to speak). I have been an AOPA member since 1976 and it HAS been worth it. (you get cool hats pens, pins, other cheap stuff and cool pilot stuff on the site like weather, TFRs new regs and a magazine) But other than the magazine (which I haven't read "Sport *something*" or other magazine) Has anyone got an opinion on whether or not it is worth it to plunk down $50 and join the EAA? I searched the Forum (you have to enter *EAA, the search puppy can't smell less than 4 letter words so you fool him with a *) and got wimpy results as to the value of the membership to a build-from-scratch builder. To join or not to join, THAT is the question. ????

Ah yes, thank you Mr. Maddy sir. It is exactly what I was looking for! The chapter by chapter summary will fit into my scheme perfectly. Now I will edit the tips and tricks from y'all and add those to the list per chapter in build order. I will have a reference for all the additional info at my fingertips without having to sort through pages of newsletters and highlighted notes in the plans. "Remember to wear gloves" at the top of the page. "Enjoy the build" at the bottom Hopefully this will cut down on the occasions when I have to say: "Oh poop"! and then have to do something over again (the right way). Thanks guys

Has anyone copied the changes and updates from the Cozy newsletters and catalogued them into a single stream document? After reading all the exploits of Maddy, Slade and Zietlin it would seem that a seperate chronological page by page list of revisions and "trick and tips" and "don't forget to...when you get to..." list would save marking up the plans and can be collated and bound and hung in a place where they could be referred to, dealt with, noted and discarded with the next one in full view. I am 47 and getting older by the minute. I have a terrific memory it just like other things about me, it's just a little short (other things....ummm like...uh...my ATTENTION span yeah..) So I dont forget anything, a check list would seem like a valuable, time saving device. You could add to the list tips and tricks and review procedures as well... But first, would there be any copywrite infringements if I (for example) copied all the revisions down in a chapter by chapter fashion along with tips and tricks from the various builders (along with credits) and published it on my website in a printable checklist format? Then, builders could print, audit and place the list in a conspicuous area and hopefully, avoid some of the pitfalls others have made. Of course there are those that would forget to refer to the checklist.... Whaddayathink?

Tires that is..... And when you do smoke 'em (usually on landing) are you (or will you be) sitting on conventional Cozy spec fixed gear, or the viable alternative...Infinity retractable.. I know, I know. It's all been discussed before. But I read an old email or 2 and it seems the proprietor of IA has shipped many a kit out (at least 60). So, besides the Cozy girrls and King Cozy, where did they go?? Are they as advertised and how long did it take? Did you take it upon yourself to reinforce the spar? Would you, could you eat green eggs and ham? Curious minds want to know and ironically, so do I. Basking in the sun here in lush and picturesque south Florida not wanting to ruin a perfectly good sling-shot by putting wheels on it. Kevin