Spodman

I'm currently in a much more pathetic group, the non-flying non-builder.

The missus, and the odd mate, say learn to fly first. Reason? As Dan says: Mission Requirements. Flying may be a passion for you, or just another toy in the toybox.

So many of my friends have learnt to fly, then not flown again. I've waited until I have an actual reason to fly, but I won't really know if I want to lock myself into a shed for 5 years until I can do it.

Besides, that's how She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed has ordained it

I wonder if Burt parks it in the sun with all that RED trim???

From CP4 (my bolding):

"BUILDING TIPS - If your wood pieces do not fit perfectly for gluing,

merely mix asbestos fibers (available from Gougeon Brothers, 706 Martin

St., Bay City, Mi 48706) in to thicken the epoxy, so it will not run

out of the gap. Structural joints can be made with gaps as great as

1/16" and non-structural "fill-ins" can be done up to 1/2"."

And, thankfully, from CP7:

"Asbestos fiber that we at one time recommended as an epoxy thickener

has been identified as a possible health hazard if you breathe the

dust. We no longer use it at RAF and don't recommend that you do

either. As a non-toxic substitute, we recommend flocked cotton fiber

(Gougeon Brothers 403 fiber)."

I hadn't heard of this as a concept, something to think about before you take a grinder to a canard of this (early) vintage.

My significant other is learning to predict when I'm about to edge the word "Cozy" into a conversation and taking determined steps to prevent it. You have given me a couple of new opportunities Jon.

BTW, those s'mores look revolting. Almost as bad as my eldest's favourite, toasted peanut butter, honey and beetroot sandwiches...

I had the honor of meeting AVM Wrigley once, he completed the first circumnavigation by air of Australia in a Fairey IIId. Story goes in later years he was flying a later seaplane at Point Cook where there are a landing area and an adjacent seaplane dock.

The PO in the back keeping an eye on the senior officer pointed out (somewhat nervously) that Wrigley was on final for the grass strip which was bad in a seaplane. Wrigley went around and landed in the bay then (while climbing out) gave the PO an earful about how much time in seaplanes he had and how wasn't going to land on the grass. He then jumped down and plunged in 3m of water...

Was looking at the Spencer TriGull a while ago. With flaps, and retractable tip floats and undercarriage, you would have to be REALLY particular with your checklists.

"...would not be putting loads on the centersection spar..." erm yeah, that's what I said...

More than anything the idea of TWO independant retraction systems gives me the horrors. Both down for landing, both up for flying, one up one down for parking. The odds against reliably picking the right arrangement seem insuperable.

The E-racer gear would go a bit toward Nat's concerns about putting u/c loads on the ENDS of the main spar, where he didn't want them to be. I don't know what the mechanism would be like but would it impact on the arrangement of the rear seatback?

Either way you are boldly designing in the strake, the pictures I've seen of the arrangement of ribs in the strake for the infinity look like a rat's nest.

I would agree the Dyke Delta is a striking looking machine, but I wonder if its a terribly practical aircraft? I've read a scathing flight report yonks ago in a US magazine, the handling was ok but the climb performance dangerously bad. This may have been fixed with the O-360 people that come up with a google have fitted. Can't find any sites that brag about the performance.

Without the skin. This shows rear seat room possibly even worse than the Cozy! Though the seatbacks are straighter so less room needed maybe. The structure seems to have a similar sill height to the Cozy and no sign of doors in it, but I bet you can't fit an electric noselift to the Delta. This option is an authorised change to the plans and makes entry MUCH more practical to the plastic beast.

Phil bought this and has 39hrs on it. Looks lovely, but with 100hr up It's for sale with this to say "...the rear spar of the center section has rust that will require it to be replaced. Getting access to it will be labor intensive but possible." Crivens! Did he park it in a rock-pool? Cozy built of plastic, don't rust.... erm. Except for the crush plates???

An accident report on a stalled (modified) Delta says about the standard design: "The designer of the original prototype described a fully developed stall in this airplane as a mushing characteristic, resulting in a high sink rate and temporary loss of control." (My emphasis) A nastier concept than a fully controlled nod, nod, nod you get with a canard.

I still can't find anything about the performance so nobody's bragging, but the landing speed looks more reasonable than the Cozy, reports that make me worry say if you get off the runway you:

a) Still may not get out of ground effect

b) Still might skip along the runway for a bit!

I think Buck Rogers would have had a hard time picking between the two

No plans yet, just the info kit. I only need three things organised to get started. Find the time, the money and somewhere to build it. I've said the last point in front of my neighbor with a large, empty shed a few times now but the way he says "Oh sh*t" and runs away seems to indicate he's not keen...

We'll see when I get the bathroom finished.

Well started!

In my (assisted) trial of a layup on somebody elses aircraft I got to do all the things I'd read about, but actually doing it was completely different. You probably could have written about what you were doing before you started, but I bet it FEELS different!

He's over 5,000 hours already, 4,500 is the estimation in the plans! He could build two Cozys and a Starlet in the time he's spent, but all three would have a sorry end landing in a lake

Click here for an Aircar - the other 4 seat, plans built aircraft...

The Aircar cabin is a much more complex concept, but Doug has used a similar method to the Cozy turtleback. He heated then sewed his foam to the jig stringers to achieve the complex shape and I think this method may help some who's websites indicate this was a problem. Could also be useful for cowlings for those of us facing huge transport bills for featherlite bits.

Doug was driven to these lengths by pathetic support from the plans owner, who seems to have forgotten where the moulds are to produce the bits the plans say the builder has to buy. By all accounts the items are a low grade of cr@p if you can find them. Doug is a bit critical of himself, but I think he's done a fine job. It does make me appreciate the marvellous support available for the Cozy. The Aircar yahoo group has virtually no traffic and the distributor of the plans is MIA.

Next project for Doug, a Cozy on floats? Shame it would sink engine first without somebody in the front seat all the time...

But where does it end? Do you buy the fuzzy plans from Joe_Dodgy on Ebay for $20 and build? Where do you stand from there? Under the experimental classification you can wrap 2BID around fresh dog sh1t, slap something that makes noise on the back and call it a B747.

Am I being a die-hard liberal by wanting to slip $AUD 635 to ASS or should I just start collecting the output of my labrador????

Ahh! Thanks Renee (or is it Jim) for clearing that up. I'm ever hopeful of picking up a Cozy project for a song and wondered what the process was.

Does this apply to plans sold by Co-Z Development also? I asked Nat a while ago but didn't get a clear answer.

Can you get more takeoff performance by trading a bit of cruise speed?

Not sure I'd do it, I'm firming up on the ridgy-didge "as per plans" concept. It will still be my baby if it looks exactly like Nat's.

I'd say there are effects having the wing in the wash of the canard, but there may be other factors that have forced the current arrangements.

The wing probably can't go any lower without fouling undercarriage and requiring more dihedral for stability. It can't go any higher without blinding the back seat & requiring different fuselage structure to the upper longerons. The canard is as high as is can go without sitting on a strange looking pole, and if it were any lower it would be more vulnerable when lowering the nose for parking.

I've read in the info pack about the aft cg testing Nat did on the IV. One of the benefits listed of lopping 6" off the canard span was less interference with the wing.

You may have been mislead by talk of jigs, they're mostly not for laying up but for holding foam in the right shape/position while you layup over The foam!

The book by Mr. Rutan is Moldless Composite Construction (or something like that.)

Another pertinent question, how much lard could you take off a Corvette if you made it out of foam & BID? Or would it just get expensive?

Thort some more about this. Others have said accidents have happened from peel-ply not removed and I can see why, in my one and only layup the peel-ply (from ASS) just dissappeared when the resin went on. Other others have said you can use anything that looks like the genuine peel-ply, but other other others hint darkly at fg eating sizing. Still other other other others draw on the peel-ply with a marker pen.

I'll go to my local fabric shop and buy something yellow. I won't forget its there, but should still be able to see any voids below.

Burt Rutan was very vocal against "peel-ply everything", but if you read the relevant CP articles he was mostly worried about resin being soaked up from lower plies. Just pile on more resin.

Sorry about all the "others" but I'm drinking Bundy on my birthday.

When I say "peel-ply" something I mean the whole process, layup, apply peel-ply, cure, when ready to put on next bit remove peel-ply. I understand its used to:

1 - Create clean surface for next layup/joint (sanding required),

2- Create clean surface at edges of plies (particularly taped joints) and floxed corners,

These are as presented in the plans. Then you have two options:

1 - Peel ply final layup, filling voids between fg weave with (heavy) neat resin, or

2 - Just leave it and fill up the voids later with (lighter) dry micro, at the expense of much buggaring about and extra work.

I've read #1 could cost about 16lb for the whole airframe. Don't know how reliable (or significant) that figure is.

Haven't heard of an Outback Steakhouse, but I used to live in the outback, (Central and Northern Western Australia) where they run one cow per square kilometer. Recipe for outback steak: Place steak in pot with brick and boil until brick is soft. Throw away steak and eat brick.

Such animals are actually not eaten by Australians (except for pet food) and are exported to Europe and the US. WE eat King Island beef when we want a treat. YUMMMMMM!

I like this idea. The concept of sanding to mate parts and leaving little shiny bits between the weave or grinding off lovingly applied fg seems a bit half-baked in comparison. So does including extra weight by peel-plying everything also. This beats all these things, and its another reason for me to buy a compressor .

Looks great. Pretty colors are a worry. Susceptible to re-kitting on a hot day?

I really like the "new posts" feature, I just select that every time I enter, and then browse through any threads that interest me. That way I don't miss anything, even when away from the confuser for a week or so.

I only look through the home page if looking for something from the archive or wondering where to put a new post/question.

Well, the concept of more back seat made me peruse the Aerocad site, and in it I found the following:

Type Rear width Kits

A/C-FG/RG 39.5" 16

A/C-SB 36" 16

MKIV 36" Plans Built

I'm reading that as you can get a kit-built with more back seat than the "MKIV", but what is the rear seat width on the proper Nat Puffer-type Cozy MKIV?

Is the Aerocanard available in plans? I thought they just sold kits.

Voyager lost both winglets from takeoff damage. They dragged because of three last-minute changes to the u/c trim & fuel load.

After takeoff the right winglet was waggling on its wires and a bit of glass, then folded back almost on the top wing surface, so they purposely broke it off in a sideslip. The other fell off in turbulence a bit later.

It was just luck they didn't lose a fuel tank or two, there was a few feet of wing added for balance after the fuel system was finished.

Despite the shiny new-age look of the Voyager, its flight was just as significant, just as on the edge of possibility, and just as on the edge of hairy disaster as anything from Alcock & Brown, Lindberg or Kingsford-Smith.