Spodman

New information from the old CP44: "A Florida Long-EZ was substantially damaged when it struck two power lines while flying level at approximately 140 knots, between two islands. The lower power line removed the main gear entirely, including the attach fittings, some lower fuselage structure and some of the prop. The upper power line cut the upper left winglet off just above the standard rudder. This piece was recovered by fishermen and measured 37" at the leading edge and 27" at the trailing edge. The pilot reported that the impact felt like light turbulence!! The aircraft was put into an immediate climb. The pilot managed to fly at 600 feet using nearly full right aileron and full right rudder, for a distance of 4 miles over saw grass and trees to a power plant. A 1,500 foot strip of rock and dirt was chosen (all that was available) and a normal off field landing was executed. The pilot was not aware that the main gear had been torn off, so he put down the nose gear and speed brake. The Long-EZ was damaged in the crash landing, but both people on board suffered only bruising from the seat belts and shoulder harnesses. The aircraft was losing altitude and thrust even though the engine was developing good power, due to prop damage. The pilot did a really excellent job in keeping his cool and flying the airplane." "...just above the standard rudder..." means 2/3 to 3/4 of the fin gone! Looks like control authority may be a problem is any more goes. You would probably need Dan's chainsaw to get the whole thing off. What an amazing crash

Noooooooo....... I'll be in touch soon, have worked through Christmas and am now working off shift swaps to get to the beach

In Oz you can reserve your tail letters (for 12 months) as soon as you have a serial number, and register your aircraft as soon as you have a part! As such I've reserved VH-UMI, coz of the Kingsford-Smith ANA connection. It even comes with a name "Southern Moon", which suggests some entertaining artwork around the lower rear cowling... For other Aussies, the following are available, released from my short list: UMH (Southern Sky) CXZ KZY QOZ FRP - Good for a Cozy YWY - Looks like a formation of canards, and would be entertaining hearing ATC say it fast DUM FZI FZL ICK NIT NBG NUJ OOP WTF PUS (paint it yellow) ZOF YOB WTF - just for fun CUM BUM ARS TIT & POO - Allready taken...

New text on Nat/ASS site:

Ah! Yet again my ignorance shows, I had it in my head the main landing gear bow was about $1300, but on Nat's Featherlite link it's only $613 (or it was in 2000 anyhow). I doubt it's increase to more than $680 since then, so I'll pull my head in now! ("Schloop!" noise...)

Erm, Al has the "aerocad" website, Jeff just has "aerocad2". Maybe Jeff should change??? Nice price for landing gear struts.

I dunno, I'm planning to do it as per the plans. Glass front side of the rectangular piece of foam, with one edge bevelled & rounded. Cut all the notches on the edges, round & flox corner. Glass the back, cut the middle holes later. Don't think it's all that important if you do it a bit different, but note my opinions not yet tested by building anything. One thing I note (in the aerocad plans) the last para of step 2 says Does this mean the BLADE of either a sabre saw or hack saw can be MANUALLY scratched at your bulkhead to trim, or can you USE a sabre saw? Also, is a sabre saw the same as a jigsaw?

I had an e-mail from Jabiru a while ago, they claim the 5100 is 150mm longer than the o-360 and would probably fit in a standard cowl. I have my reservations about this, there'd be a fair bit of baffling involved. Their website now shows nifty 'ram-air' ducts that go above the cylinders to replace baffling. Don't know if they would work in reverse for a Cozy.

Fairy Nuff. Sorry to be spreading old wive's tails... While I didn't find anything relevant in a search the "similar posts" thingie down below did. Shame it doesn't appear until I've asked a question for the nth time

From THE CANARD PUSHER NO. 30 Oct 81 George Gilmer with his EZ, based at Santa Paula, CA. George is 74 and has been flying since 1928! George built all the parts of this EZ, including wheels and brakes. Probably still flying too, the devil. Making his own wheels is a nice touch. The same issue had the following: John Denver at Oshkosh shortly after his flight in the Long-EZ with Mike Melvill. His assessment of Mike's Long "farr-out!!" Photo by Bill Ebken. Feel like the bad guy has just poked his head out from the wings of the panto stage and everybody yells "He's behind you!" In this case, of course, we all yell "Don't buy it John, build your own!"

From THE CANARD PUSHER NO. 30 Oct 81 The transponder antenna can be mounted under the front seat thigh support, and this is where quite a lot of builders have located it, however, Jim Weir of Radio Systems Technology has cautioned that it may be possible that high powered microwave energy may be radiating in very close proximity to a rather sensitive part of the pilots anatomy. To put it bluntly, it may be a little like sticking your fanny into a microwave oven! In any event, no qualified person to our knowledge has tested this, so it may be prudent to laminate a sheet of aluminum foil under the thigh support. Microwave energy will not penetrate the thinnest of metallic foils. I think I remember a thread about this but can't find it. Where do you put the tspr antenna? Is there a problem with including Al foil under the paint?

From THE CANARD PUSHER NO. 30 Oct 81 Last summer we learned from Rudi Kurth of Switzerland, Ed Hamlin and Bruce Tifft, that a longer prop extension spool would reduce the cockpit noise level and possibly increase performance. We collected accurate baseline data, then removed the standard 3-inch extension and installed longer ones. We have tested 4-inch, 5-inch and 6-inch extensions. Most of our data was for the 6-inch extension. Results are as follows: As compared to 3-inch, sound level at pilot's station and rear seat was reduced two and a half to three DBA at high speed cruise and climb conditions. Oil temperature on all three airplanes tested with the long extension was increased. Cylinder temperatures on one of the airplanes increased. There was no measurable change in the performance of any of the airplanes due to extension length. We have been reluctant to recommend the long extensions because any change in the propulsion/drive system of an aircraft must be thoroughly tested for long-term durability. We now have a total of 300 hours 6-inch time on Long-EZs with no indication of problems, and since the two 8-inch extensions on the Defiant have run 600 hours it appears that no mechanical problems are indicated. Thus, if you can stand a 20 to 30 degree rise in engine temperatures you can, with a 1.5 lb. Weight penalty, achieve a significant noise reduction by using a 6-inch extension. Note that we have tested this only with Lycoming engines and cannot predict the durability of a Continental application. So, does this mean in these days of ANR headsets, (and who cares how noisy the cabin is), you could save 1.5 lb and get 20 to 30 degree lower engine temps by fitting a 3" extension instead of a 6" to a Cozy? Has it been tried? Is the relatively (to a Long) porky Mk IV fuselage a factor here? On another tack, how about the 8" extenstions on the Defiant? If I use a three blade prop I could make a real swoopy cowl.

Erm, if you don't know enuf to mess with the wings you probably shouldn't mess with anything else either. The design really shouldn't be played with just by eye or imagination, but by actual knowledge of what any changes will do. If you build as per the plans you will get an aircraft with reasonably well known flight characteristics that will be (with the required test program) be safe to fly your family in. If you change things then you are the test pilot trying out a new design. On the other hand, I'm just a newbie like you but kinda old and cautious. There are modifications approved by Nat for the larger frame. 25mm wider at the seatback and mount the canopy 25mm higher. For those with piano legs the center console goes and you can slosh over a bench seat. Nat's standard answer to those who want to bloat his design are to sit in one first, you may be fine. I'm 195cm & 110kg, and am intending the first two mods. I've read on this and other forums that every change you make will take MUCH longer than if you build as per the plans, and you will regret the change later. Substituting CF into any of the airframe is a divisive issue you can read about if you search the archive. In short it will increase the cost for no real weight benefit and extra problems may arise, unless you know your materials. If you just slap on extra layers of FG, or CF over the plans-required FG you will add weight and not neccessarily add strength to the whole structure.

Is lovely aircraft. I'm really not into modifications, not convinced I'm smart enuf, but that is something to make you think.

Erm, OK Jon, I'll bite. What is the advantage of all that palaver? I've still only done one layup, the ordinary steam-powered plans version that produced a beaut part of the required weight. Why design the simplicity out of the process?

I like both, being at the information gathering stage. I imagine both would get irritating to the more experienced when newbies start tired threads like "Hey! Has anybody thought of fitting retracts to a Cozy?" or "I've read that the Lycoming was first used in Fred Flintstone's homebuilt Pterodactyl, can I bolt on a Caterpiller diesel?", but with the forum you can direct goose-boy to the link rather than pleading for him to consult the archive. I like to keep snippets from the mail list, and I'll have them as long as I can read the format. In the forum it depends on the moderator still being there when I want the information. The EZ Squadron had a huge archive of Hangar Flying which has gone down the gurgler due server failure or something I can also access both formats away from home, as my e-mail provider has a web-mail service that's easy to browse. I can also filter "Lycoming risk assessment" "failure rate" so they never leave the server & use my e-mail browser to filter everything with "Cozy" into a separate INBOX. This means I don't miss an opportunity for a stronger, longer, thicker something-or-other with free money & extra hair if it takes me a week or two to get through a backlog of Cozy messages. But if I want to know something I'll check the archive here first, and its much easier to follow a discussion here, particularly if I come in late and need to review what the actual question is. Pikkies are good too, must be some overstuffed servers somewhere. Below is my 1:72 Cozy. It's progress doesn't bode well for full scale production anytime soon.

Lengthy cut'n'paste from an old CP (from when there were about 20 Varieze flying) which leads me to understand something I didn't before - a heavier motor and a longer canard are both ways toward an aft c of g: "Those of you who do have the heavier engines and alternators are finding that the nose weight needed to get the cg forward is cutting into your useful load, already reduced with the heavy engine. If this were a conventional airplane there wouldn't be much you could do, short of moving the engine or wing. But, since the VariEze has two widely separated, lifting wings, the allowable cg range can be shifted by shortening or lengthening the canard. Thus a "tailheavy" airplane can be made to fly "nose-heavy" merely by sawing off canard span, making no change to actual cg! This can be done only up to a point, where directional stability is lost as cg is moved aft. We have tested the flying qualities and confirmed that the canard/elevator is free from flutter at two canard spans - 150" as shown in the plans and 142" which is obtained by sawing 4" off each tip. If 4" is sawed off each canard tip (142" span) you can move the allowable cg range aft 1.2 inches. This is equal to adding 15-lb weight in the nose at F.S. 5. Let's look at a couple of examples to see what this canard trim can do for you. Assume you weigh 170 lb and you are using an 0-200 with alternator and a small battery. When you do your weight and balance you find you will need 30-lb ballast in the nose to get to the nose heavy condition (preferred for low pitch sensitivity) for first flight. Then later you can remove 1/2 the ballast, but will have to carry 15 lb of lead in the nose for the life of the airplane. If you trim the canard you will find that you only need 15-lb ballast to get to the forward cg you need for first flight. Then, when you are comfortable with the stick forces you can remove all ballast and have the best useful load and a mid to aft cg. Thus, trimming the canard has increased your useful load by 15 lb!" Also showing more tolerance toward modification then, probably until the death toll mounted...

Is a sexy little beast, and you can paint it bright red without the designer cacking himself!

To start with, you appear to have started building and I haven't, so consider my comments on that basis. I think you need to have another look at the method described in the plans coz your comments make me think you haven't grasped it yet, and Nat lays it out pretty clear. The epoxy in the micro is there to bond the fibreglass to the foam. The microballoons are in the epoxy to keep the weight of this essential bonding to a minimum. If you just smear the micro around and let it cure I expect it would have the following effect: A rough surface that the fg will not lay over, an even worse bond than bare foam, A shiny surface to the micro that will not bond well to the fg. As I understand the process you must spread the micro over the foam, then scrape it off with a rubber squeegee til you get a smooth surface. Before it cures lather on the epoxy & layup the fg. If you let the micro dry you would have to sand it back to get a mechanical bond going - in lieu of the chemical bond you have forsaken. The other contentious concept is "hard-shelling" which you search through the archives for, then not do... Hope your having fun in the build, I am fairly jealous

Well I've done neither... What you have is the original book by Burt Rutan, the daddy who adapted fg sailplane construction to something you can do in your shed. It may have been revised, but the materials may still be different now. As Jon said, the tolerances on weighing such a small sample would take you either side of the desirable target! Look at it, bend it, compare it to a piece of aluminium that weighs the same, nail it over your workshop door and show it to the missus & your mates, but don't draw too many conclusions whether you have learnt the method yet. The plans will do it. I see the book and the accompanying kit are still in the ASS & Wicks catalogues and was tempted to get one myself before I had a go myself on another bloke's project. Keep it to proselytise others who like the boat you're building...

I think the difference may be the type of Cozy you're looking at. The open-back one is a Cozy III with an O-320, the circles a Cozy IV with an O-360. This applies to the Featherlite cowl, build your own you can make it how you like, let alone if you have bolted on some automotive-hybrid monstrosity and can't use the Featherlite. Shipping costs mean I'll probably build my own. Somebody feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

The ridgey from AVWEB Get it B4 it goes away...

Erm, not a supporter of the Doggies in these troubled times I hope? Seriously though, I've heard of about 4 projects underway on the east coast. The only one I've actually seen is in Latrobe Valley, he has a set of templates (I assume we are talking wing/canard templates here) but he hasn't used them yet. You could try Chris Byrne in Sydney (a member of this forum) or check out the 4 Cozys on the register at www.casa.org.au & badger them. Only leave Tony Rothwell alone coz he's got a Cozy III, and very nice it is to. Another contact would be Marc Zeitlen's mailing list. If you register you get access to about 13 Orstralian member's contact details, some of which are building. Not me but.

I follow both forums, it doesn't take much more effort to check 'NEW POSTS' for two sites than one. The support (official & otherwise) for my (planned) Cozy is incredible compared to other projects I have contemplated. The Spencer Aircar website hasn't been updated for a decade, the holder of the plans hasn't answered a email for over a year and the yahoo group's traffic consists of a forlorn tool-tip monthly from the moderator. Initially I was concerned the "dark side" forum pinching traffic might make people on this forum think the same about canards, but I offer the following: The ASS site (previously Nat's) carries links to this forum, Marc's mail list and the "dark side", so I don't think people would give up on a canard 'til they've tried them all. Multi-forums is hurting nobody. A Google easily finds this forum and the dark side. And EZ Squadron. Dust revealed in one of his 'editorial' posts (that used to sorta irritate Jon a bit) a desire to unite the world in one big forum covering everything. Erm, lets keep some diversity going please, one Bill Gates is enuf from you Septics. The 'dark side' (& Marc's list) still flames like mad everytime somebody mentions car engines or retracts. Good. The Lycosaurus is just getting older and the alternatives are getting less alternative. Jon suggests it would not be well recieved for him to duplicate Dust's post on the 'dark side'. I don't agree, they are a friendly and accepting bunch over there, I can't get Dust to bite even when I bait him. Give it a go, in the interests of diversity. I don't have many questions at the moment, but will continue to post them to both forums until somebody objects.

Bandsaw is plans recommended, but not for the oversize methods some use. You're supposed to cut the foam to match the templates, then layup one side & either knife trim the excess when still soft or bandsaw it when cured. It is hard on the blade, but I haven't heard of resulting delamination. A jigsaw, with its reciprocating action, would most likely do some damage. In the archive you will find posts from "Dust" (now migrated to the "dark side") who made his bulkheads oversize, then trimmed twice with a router to a ply template to make bulkheads that are probably more accurate than the plan templates... This extra gibber may have been worth it as he is building two Cozy and the jigs & templates have gone to others and will probably make plenty more. I am in no way convinced it will save you any effort if you have to make the ply templates yourself and use them once, the plans methods work fine. I've used a Fein, (in my one and only layup so far) and concur they are brilliant. Bit pricey but.