Spodman

http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2110

Link dodgy, try this one. Second edition plans. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Unused-COZY-MKIV-Rutan-Type-Canard-Aircraft-Plans_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26441QQihZ008QQitemZ180080161128QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Looks interesting. Hope they know more about engines than shooting video, its a rough effort.

To somebody not used to it the US preoccupation with fractions & fear of decimals is a bit bewildering, why anybody would have a decimal currency and still refer to 102 33/64 cents defies me, particularly seeing the smallest coin we have in circulation here is 5 cents! What would be so wrong or bewildering about $1.025? I note Qantas hit a low of AUD4.930 this morning, If I buy 10 shares at 4.935 I can write a cheque for it! Why decimal inches? Buggared if I know but using whole inches leaves a big gap between possible measurements, and using one decimal place leaves only 2.5 mm between graduations, this gives me an indication of how accurate to be with my cuts. If Burt wanted me to be more accurate he'd have said 33.33 inches giving .25 mm between graduations. A third of 100 inches? 33.3 inches, further decimals are not significant to the task. Why did Burt use decimal inches? Coz he's a smart man, that's why.

Will your Musketeer retract the flaps if you go over 90K & thwack your leg?

Haven't read your boffin's book so will not comment. Burt has been quoted that he may have been mistaken about the relative efficiency of canard designs, but there are other factors you can read about here: http://www.cozybuilders.org/Oshkosh_Presentations/Nats_OSH2005_Presentation.pdf The Cozy attraction for me is you get a funky looking aircraft that is efficient to fly, regardless of the potential of comparable efficiency from alternate configurations. There are no 4 seat competitors that don't require a kit. It doesn't stall (not really anyhow) and doesn't spin. I did read an article once about some other boffins who were going to prove Burt wrong by moving the location of the canard around to minimise interaction with the wing but didn't actually show any benefit.

Check out the newsletters for what Nat thought of the Franklin: http://www.cozybuilders.org/newsletters/news_toc.html Have a look at 53-56. The conclusion: "The 90 extra Ibs. of engine plus 25 Ibs. of ballast equates to one light passenger, in exchange for a little more hp and a little more speed. For us, we don't believe it is worth it. We have, in our hangar, a 180 hp Lycoming 0-360, which we purchased in 1991 for $5500 with 1540 hrs since new, which now has 1820 hrs since new and might be good for another 500 hrs, or 4 or 5 years of flying. I like light airplanes, so we plan to put the Lycoming back in. This has been an expensive experiment. We spent over $15,000 on this project, not counting R & D time (the first time you do something its always more expensive). We didn't do it for ourselves, because we were happy with our Lycoming, but we have been under this continuous pressure to suggest some alternate engine possibilities. We considered the Franklin to be the most promising substitution, but it has turned out to be heavier (installed) than we expected. The extra engine weight could be offset by a heavier front seat weight, or by locating the battery in the nose, but we will not recommend it for the average builder..." You need to ask yourself if the marginal performance increase is worth months of extra work and extra cost.

I don't have any direct knowledge, but have an authoritive sounding email at home claiming turbine exhaust temperatures aren't much different to what is emitted by a 13B!

Kenoath mite. I have a friend with a C175. Can land anywhere, but it takes an awful long time to actually fly anywhere. Most grass runways are concrete hard and rough here, & bundies galore inland. Operating off concrete suits my mission requirements though.

Hello there. I sent you some stuff in a pm ref your other post, but note one question here unanswered. CASA is cool with the Cozy, same rules as any other experimental aircraft. The old regime of registered designs & no mods & periodic inspections during the build is no longer a problem. www.saaa.com is worth a visit for a detailed explanation of the rules, membership removes a lot of the costs also. Basically you can build what you want, you just have to fly it solo in a restricted area for a test period. Ongoing restrictions only if you have selected an electric reliant engine without a second electrical system.

The Oz register is online at http://www.casa.gov.au/casadata/register/datafiles.asp I won't reproduce the contents here, but note entries for two Defiants, DFY & OOI. They may not be flying (or even built) yet, but the contact details are there.

That's nice for Vans, and anybody who wants a "bumhole", but enticing people away from spam-cans by making it easy & cheap to build their own spam-cans is not innovation, it is the DEATH of innovation. As existing designs continue to be refined, and diversified to fill mission niches, there is less opportunity for new players to get a launch. Their dreams won't stack up against the demonstrated performance of the existing designs. If Burt was born 30 years after he was, and hatched his idea for an aircraft that flew backwards it would probably look quite like the Vari-Viggen. If he released it to the world this week at Oshkosh, business would be slow, even with CNC bits. To get anywhere he would have to refine & rebuild & polish the design until it looked BETTER than a Long-Ez. That would take time & money & he would probably want to eat every-so-often. It would be a lot harder for my new Burt to get into the industry, and with the minimal returns from plan sales he probably wouldn't bother.

"I want to install these balanced on the two sides of the canard equally spaced about the centerline of the fuselage." I've seen a few assumptions above and am still not sure I understand what you are contemplating. Could you do a quick sketch of what you want and post it? I think you wanted a pusher, but do you want the engines perched on the canard (small front wings), the strakes (front part of larger rear wing - which would place pusher propellors in the middle of the wing???), the rear of the wing (like both twin-eze I've seen pictures of) or on pods in the middle. If you put the fuel tank between the front seats & the back the fuel will be far forward of the standard c of g position. Your rear seat pax should be patriotic Americans, coz they will have the same view of the world as Lindberg did on his way to Paris. They should also be reasonably sedantary in habits, as once they are fibreglassed in there will be no access to the door to let them out again... It is easy to think of alternative locations for the fuel tanks, just a lot harder to think of BETTER locations. The Centurion makes economic sense when fitted to a certified aircraft in lieu of a certified new/overhauled engine, coz it is much cheaper to run and to overhaul (as in replace) when the time comes. Compared to a single non-certified conventional engine of the class of an O-540 you are going to have to fly it's pants off (if it flys - there is a risk here) before you could pay off two Centurions. Those suckers are expensive here, and can't be that much cheaper over there, and both need a c/s prop. The manufacturers don't seem to be all that homebuilder friendly either, I gather they reserve the right to design & fit their installations, and want to do all the maintenance also. Works in Europe with their more restrictive rules but probably not that realistic in a US homebuilt. I know it is only supposed to develop 135hp (from memory) but they are being fitted here to replace bigger inContinents & Lycosaurs in Arrows & C182, etc. Given all the above it may be practical to fit one (and only need one) in a completely stock Cozy, maybe in a Velo:confused:

Looks luverly, but would 120 HP be enuf to get off to continue climbing if you have an engine failure on take off? If not you only have the option of closing the throttle on the good engine if one fails. Adding to that, with double the number of engines compared to a Cozy you have doubled the chances of an engine failure. The Jabiru engines are lighter than Lycosaurs, even the 5100. Try two of them? Be nice if they made a 5 cylinder version with 150 HP

Break a leg Adrian!

Hello & welcome. There are others with plans in Adelaide, and I think a cozy III is based there! I think I'm in the same situation as you, just a bit further from completing my PPL. you have destroyed some illusions here, I imagined my Coopers was brewed in great wooden vats by spherical men with aprons, mustaches & bright, red noses!

The Bingelis scan says "both types of engine mounts look the same when viewed from the side" so the lower part of the Continental, the Lyc & Aubrey's Anchor design would look same from the side. In fact the Continental has one of Aubrey's 'green' tubes. Looks to me the Lyc has been beefed up to replace the single Continental tube and clear the above. The plans warn about adding even extra little bits of BID when taping a corner because of the penalty on performance (and therefore safety when actually trying to fly the thing) the extra weight will add up to. I'm sure the CG effort would be stronger with all the extra pipes that will fit and even with fillets in all the corners, but see no wisdom in adding great clumps of metal behind the c of g that there seems to be no actual practical need for. One question I would have, the Bingelis version has what looks like a fillet below the bottom tubes which doesn't seem to be present on the CG. A fillet would help with the bending stresses that seem likely here, why wasn't it included? Similarly, the straps bracing the top tubes don't appear on the Bingelis version and would not be as effective as a fillet between the tubes. Tacked on the sides and square edged my completely unqualified eye feels they would add to bending stresses on the tube on the side away from the mounting point rather than help. Somebody qualified please tell me I'm wrong. The snipe about composite structures being not possibly safe to bolt an engine to is typical of metal-fetishists! Am just reading about the marvellous WWII composite aircraft the Mosquito (balsa core plywood in this case). When looking for an aircraft to mount a 57mm anti-tank gun on to for anti-shipping strikes the RAF first tried the Boston (A-20 to most readers). Test firing tore it apart. The same weapon on the nose of the Mosquito saw active service with no problems, until under-wing rockets made the concept redundant. I think people only build airframes out of metal due to conservatism & lack of imagination!

Well done Jamie. The plans are an absolute hoot to read & fondle, which is all I've done with mine so far. Don't get too hung up on John's comments above, the shed'll do!

I found a picture. Sadly the rudder itself is not clearly in view, anybody got a better one? Taken Oshkosh 1979.

Fair enuf, guess I'm wrong again!

Erm, not sure this is as per the actual history. The Vari-eze first appeared with 'normal' ez rudders on the winglets, but had no ailerons. Roll & pitch controlled by elevons on the canard. Spoilers were added because of crap handling, then the elevons & spoilers ditched in favour of elevators on the canard and ailerons on the wings. I had an email from Nat Puffer claiming to be the only home-builder to have installed all three! Long-Ez was the same as the definitive Vari, with the option of 'high performance' rudders (as in bigger and more rudder-looking) as per the Cozy plans version. The Defiant was the only Rutan canard with the forward rudder, a small, all moving surface under the nose. Rather than correcting bad handling it was there to make the controls easier to build, (no moving parts on the winglets & shorter control runs), and taking advantage of a steerable oleo nosewheel that didn't have to retract to park. Versions have been flown with the rhino rudder and others with Long-Ez rudders, with no great change in performance. I am not aware of the rhino ever being approved by Burt for the Vari or the Long, never heard of anybody trying it either. But you can probably see more canards at you local than have ever been built here in all of Oz:D Adding a rhino to an existing design you would have to appreciate the de-stabilising effect of having a fin up front. Having no fixed part of the fin will minimise the effect. You may have to increase the size of your butterfly tail to compensate? PS. I've had a look at the pikkie now those fins are already huge, maybe rudders on them would be more effective. Nice looking model.

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2235 Ideal Cozy IV engine, mount available from Jabiru. Located somewhere in Canada, wants US$17,500. (I thort they had their own currency...)

I'd think again about this particular mod. If I had a Long-Ez I would consider this, but would also consider a tube steel arrangement. I would do one, just don't know which. There are plenty of Longs flying with neither. My main objection to the Rutan version is there is un-cleanable canopy between the rollover and the canopy that would look smeggy quickly??? If I was building an Open-Ez (which I'm not planning to, but I just had to download the stuff - thanks guys ) I'd tend towards splitting the canopies (like a Berkut) and beef up the resulting turtleback as a rollover (that doesn't have to hinge or latch).

There used to be rules here in Oz that builders were not permitted to modify designs, the plans were sacred and you had to follow. On the other hand the REGULATOR could impose changes as they saw fit. We now have a system that closely resembles the way the US has written theirs down, which is much more reasonable. Thank you SAAA. Am really uncomfortable with the racist comments above, regardless of historical evidence. The other way of looking at it is if you have entered into an agreement with the designer (while I haven't seen the agreement involved I gather this from the designer's comments above) that precludes changes to the design, then your options are to build it that way or build something else.

Glad to see the discussion more technical and a bit less personal. Don't push the SUBMIT button when you are angry. I think some are a bit dismissive of the SNG concept coz many have suggested it as a bold leap forward, but nobody has delivered, including Burt: That would have been Chrismas 1982... Unlike others that have promised same, the admission of defeat from Burt came in the next CP: To expect somebody who is aware of this history to embrace joyously something that hasn't flown yet is a bit naive. To expect the first thing you bolt to an aircraft to work well enough to be safe to fly is naive, but I wish you well with it and would cheerfully use it if it proves superior when you have developed it , (if your resources and interest are able to take it that far, and I hope they do). To threaten disrupting a room full of people who have turned up specifically to listen to somebody because he poses some reasonable questions about your idea is infantile, offensive and deserves moderator action. Maybe its a cultural thing, but I don't get what it is about Marc's questions (on many topics) that get people's backs up. The Wrights have been championed as the master innovators in this thread, but I see them as very conservative. From the first gliders to the 1911 flyer the layout is almost identical. The hideous chain drive props from the 1903 are on the 1911, despite many alternatives being proven by then. They didn't change ANYTHING until they were good and ready, and FTW. If they had built a Vari in 1975 (posthumously) it would still have elevons and a revmaster today...