Steve Innova

you need to use a real breather/bleeder layer for any larger part. This allows air and epoxy to evacuate out of the layup without getting saturated. It's more expensive, but will produce better results. The paper towels will get saturated and won't distribute the vacuum evenly.

I just tried my first vacuum bagged part last night, and can report great results! I vacuum bagged the entire upper nose (don't try to correlate the part, I'm building a one-off design). Although I was only able to get 5psi due a leaky bag, the part turned out great. Lighter than expected, perfectly conforming to the foam core. Very pleased, well worth the effort. I've assembled a set up using a 12 gal air tank connected to the in port on my air compressor using Home Depot fixtures & hoses. I have a vacuum guage to monitor the vacuume, and a bleader valve to control it. I also have a vacuum switch to turn the air compressor on/off, but it's not hooked up yet. All told, cost me around $150-180 for all the stuff. It could be done cheaper, but I wanted an air compressor as the vac pump, since it's useful for other things. Where it really pays off is in the large parts, where you can never squeegie enough of the excess out, due to many layers, large area, time constraints. You just lay the plies up really wet, put down peel ply and the bleader, and vacuum bag it. All the excess gets sucked out. Learn it. Try it.

2 things: 1: The leaf spring is, IMHO, a bad idea. It's too short and thick, and flexing will quickly crack it. Plus, you'd need to make it out of steel, which is heavy, and would be more difficult to machine. 2. If you want to put your wheel/axil behind the strut, then you might as well make it a true trailing link design, with a built in shock absorber in the trailing link. There's lots of ways to do this (some have even used leather disks). Why don't you go with a strait strut, using a motercycle shock or oleo tube, with the axil centered beneath the strut, rather than trailing? That combo should allow enough shock absorbing capability to permit grass field operations.

Tony, I really like you're on to something with the spring / caster design you have. The only thing I'm concerned about is the overall shock absorbing capability. By putting your wheel/axil out behind the strut on a separate attachment (looks about 6" long), you introduce a significant lever arm. The shock forces will act vertically and to the rear on that lever arm, instead of being transmitted up the strut/shock absorber combo. There's no damper for these forces (short of twisting the strut at it's pivot on the NG30 bulkhead at the fuselage), and it will either crack the pivot or (more likely) the axil / wheel attach bracket. The reason that a Long EZ attach bracket works is that the shock forces are transmitted upward and backward along a rotational movement, aided by the strut pivot. The strut rotates backward, rather than compressing upward. I think you need to redesign the axil/wheel attach bracket to put the axil directly beneath the strut, to transmit the shock up the strut. The spring/caster will still work, it just needs to extend ahead of the axil.

Sometimes people want to do things that are different that no one else has tried, before, just because. What I don't really understand is why you need a reason to try to invent something new? As long as it's with your money and you're not trying to sell it, who cares if a comparable product already exists? Everyone says who castering steering is better, but that's a faulty arguement when there isn't an EZ steering nose gear to compare it against. Sure maybe it is, but we won't really know until someone makes the alternative.

You might consider making the new nose gear with a castering wheel to start off. Once any issues with the strut, shock, and retract mechanism are ironed out, then retrofit the steering mechanism. Lower risk, certainly.

If I recall, isn't the AL supplied in 2" flat bar? So it's actually easier to cut it 2x2 than to make them 1x1. Generally speaking, rather than order your AL flat stock chapter by chapter, just go ahead and calculate all the flat stock required and order it at once, +25% to allow for mistakes.

It'll take you longer to fix it than to make a new one.

From someone who started in a small workspace, the answer is yes, but you'll need to plan carefully. The key is to build all the small parts first, and then assemble them once you have a larger space to build. This isn't quite as satisfying as seeing the fuselage come together in 3D, but you can probably build 40% of this way. (It's not essential to follow the order of the chapters in the plans, but you'll need to read all of them if you skip steps, since it's helpful to understand how the different pieces fit together before you build them.) Here's my list, in order: Small Parts: Bulkheads (Chapt 4): Start with these, they are thin and easily stored, no part measures more than 26"x42". All you need is desk to build them on. Take around 50-60 hrs to build. (Don't start with the seatback bulkhead as called for in the plans, as this is the hardest part to make. Start first with one of the small bulkheads, like F-28). Hot air duct / center keel (Chapt 6?): Also long and narrow. Easy to assemble and store. Strake fuel baffles (forget the chapter): These are the verticle bulkheads that are inside the strakes. Go to the Cozygirrrl's website (www.cozygirrrl.com) to see how to lay them up on a single sheet of foam. Main Spar (Chapt 14?): This is a fairly complex part, but great to build if you have a long, narrow workspace. It's about 12' long, but only 6-8" wide. It'll take you about a 100 hrs. Canard, elevators (Chapt 10-11): Another long, thin part. About 12' long, 7" or so wide. About as complex as the main spar. [*]Larger Components (Still doable, if you don't assemble the separate pieces, and have somewhere to keep them): Fuselage sides (Chapt 5): Each one is about 8.5' long, 23" wide. Build them separately (instead of both at once, like in the plans), and you should be fine. If you don't assemble them together with the bulkheads, you can store them (they are mostly flat) easily. Nose gear bulkhead supports (forget the chapter). This is the bulkheads that the nose gear attaches too. You can build it first, without attaching it to the fuselage (better that way, actually, as you can ensure it is 90 degrees to the centerline). Only a few inches wide, about 2' long. Winglets (Chapt 20): These are quite doable in a small space, and will give you a great taste for the wings. Wings (Chapt 19): If you do them one at a time, it MAY be possible to build one wing at a time, but I would wait until you've done all the other parts first, since it'll be harder to store the wings than any of the other things. All of the above are major components that will probably take you about 400 (750 hrs if you build the wings & winglets too) hrs to build, in total. By the time you're finished with those, it'll be 6-12 months from now, and your living situation may have changed, or you might find a better place to build. But you'll have finished a LOT of the project. Your main challenge will be avioding making a huge mess from sanding the foam. Get a shop vac, and set up a system where you can seal off your work area. (recommend setting up hanging plastic sheeting from the ceiling. Roll it up and down to seal off the work area. This should prevent epoxy fumes as well.)

Hard shelling can allow you to do big layups by yourself. The problem I've found w/the conventional approach (spreading micro on surface, then laying down cloth, and then expoxy) is that if you have to move the cloth at all (to straighten the fibers) it tends to pull up the wet micro, leaving patches of foam without micro. This is just a cosmetic issue, as the epoxy still soaks through the cloth and into the foam, but it makes the surface look ugly. On the other hand, hard shelling allows you to easily slide the cloth back and forth to get the fibers perfectly straight. There's no wet, tacky micro beneath to grab the cloth and distort it. This allows you to do big layups by yourself, and it also allows you to break the layup into two parts -- the micro hardshelling, and then the cloth/epoxy application.

Why's that a selling point? The eliptical motion drives a 3:1 shaft, increasing the engine torque.

To oversimplify it, it's basically a 4 cycle rotary vs. the 3 cycle Mazda/Wankel rotary. I don't see any fundimental advantage, it might be a small amount smoother, but using 2 roters achieves that result anyway. You still have the issues of excess surface area on the combustion chambers.

Do you have any more details on this "new and improved" SQ-2000? A website?

I made my hotwire templates out of aluminum. If you're concerned about the temp conductivity of AL, just take a bit of flox or epoxy and brush it along the edge of the template. Once it hardens, sand it lightly. You'll have a smoother edge, and it won't conduct heat well (that is, in the 1/10 second the wire is dwelling on that point of the edge).

If you are so concerned about him being responsive enough, then why don't you pick up the phone and call him yourself, rather than relying on the opinions of people you've never met.

Last week I had dinner with a former test pilot of the Long-EZ UAV. During it's initial testing stages, a test pilot flew the aircraft. The pilot was used to train the control system. Interesting conversation.

Well, "folks like [me]" aren't that much different than the ordinary builder. I've made some rational decisions to keep the critical airfoil and thrust line relative positions the same. The aerodynamic changes are all to the fuselage, and based on the success of the similar Stagger EZ and SQ2000, I think they are within the overall limits of the design. Deminsions are within 1-3" of the standard MkIV. The first thing I'm building is the lower fuselage, the tub. This isn't very different from the standard tub, just w/more rounded side and lower nose. My main concern is that the larger, rounder canopy/turtleback will act as a more powerful lifting surface. Mitigating this is the fact that most of that lift is close to the design CG... Nevertheless, I plan on conducting some CFD analysis of the upper fuselage surface bofore building it. Finally, I'll use a moveable weight in a large-bore PVC tube stretching from the firewall to F22 (on the passenger side) during flight testing, to allow me to safely determine stall, and CG positions. Basically the answer is I've made the best decisions I can with what I know about the design, plan on doing further analysis, and will have a plan to mitigate risks during flight testing. of the original design specifications (airfoil and thrust line relative positions)

Thanks, it's an original design not a copy, but the SQ2000 and the Stagger EZ certainly inspired my ideas. Hopefully I'll be able to beat Steve Wright's 6500 hr build time though

I usually post at the other canard forum, but it's been some time since I updated this site w/my Cozy redesign plans. I've made quite a bit of progress in modelling the new fuselage as well as researching and identifying the construction technique. I'm using Rhino 3.0 to model the design in 3D. After probably 100-150 hrs of learning the system, sketching out ideas, tweaking, starting over, starting again, etc..., the exterior is finalized, as is the interior. As for construction technique, on some good advice I'm adapting two composit boat-building techniques, the cove-and-bead strip method and the vertical stripping method. The standard Cozy methods won't work for the compound curves of my design, but these adapted boatbuilding techniques will let me easily make compound curves to match the 3D cad model. No mold necessary -- it'll be a one off, though fully replicable thanks to the 3d model. As for materiels, I'm using (mostly) the standard glass layup schedule, with some reinforcements here and there. The main departure is that instead of 3# 3/8" divinicell (H45 foam at Wicks/ACC), I'm using 3.7 #, 1/2" Core-cell SANS foam. I've researched the material properties and find it to be slightly superior to the divinicell. Furthermore, its easier to shape and heat-form, which is essiential w/my construction method. I begin the build on Thursday! Here are some rendered images of the 3d model:

I didn't say you could be "less careful/accurate" in a conventional aircraft -- What I said was most conventional planes give you more flexibility to trade fuel capacity for front seat weight, since both are usually carried directly above the aircraft CG. The Cozy on the other hand carries its fuel over the CG, but its passengers ahead of the CG. Build whatever the hell you want, just don't make your decision based on an emotional attatchment to a particular airframe -- consider your absolute mission requirements / cost / ease of construction, and chose accordingly.

1. The Long EZ has an all glass canopy. There's no comparison between a bubble canopy and the Cozy's turtleback for the rear seats. To get the same effect in a Cozy, you'd need a new canopy. (Doable) 2. The Long EZ also has slightly smaller strakes, which makes it [marginally] easier to see the ground ahead of you. You could modify the cozy to be a tandem aircraft, but if you do that you're really giving up the big advantage of a cozy, that it's a 2+2. I stand by what I said, blasphemous as it may be.

I disagree. The rear passenger would not greatly enjoy the ride in a tandem seat cozy. There is little visibility, and the [plans] Cozy has less headroom in the rear seat than in the front seat. I hate to say it, but for really large people who want to sit side-by-side, you'd do better with a conventional aircraft. In most conventional 2 seat aircraft, the seats are positioned directly above the aircraft wing and center of gravity (usually). This makes them less sensitive to having heavy(er) weights (passengers) in the seats. As long as they can fit, large people can usually fly with a reduced fuel load without compromising the delicate wieght and balance of the aircraft. On the other hand, the front seats in the Cozy are ahead of the center of gravity, making the Cozy MUCH MORE sensitive to overloading in the front seat. The max front seat weight in the Cozy is between 400 and 450 lbs. Widening the fuselage isn't going to change that, and flying out of CG could be lethal. Build a plane that meets your mission requirements. If your mission requirements include 2 large people, side by side, with a combined weight of more than 400 lbs, you should consider a conventional 2 seater.

Best advice I could give you: Make a wooden mockup of the fuselage, using plywood or cardboard. Something real simple. Install a seatback at 45 degrees, use cushions to simulate the seat. Separate the sides until you have something that works for you and your brother. That way you can narrow down the design. For reference, the sides are about 22" high. The instrument panel is 37" wide or so, the seatback is 42" wide. By the way, 60" is bigger than a honda Civic, I think. That's too big for a single engine plane.

Everyone knows the real reason for a BRS in a GA plane is convince the friends and family that it's "safe" to fly with you.

I'm cross posting this from the canardaviation.com forum... As some of you may have noticed, I recently put my Chapt. 4-7 fuselage tub up for sale. It's not because I've abandoned the build, but rather because I've decided to take a different path, both in construction technique and in the desired outcome. My objective is this -- I want to build an entirely new fuselage for the Cozy Mk IV, one that will retain the proven aerodynamic dimensions of the Mk IV while adopting a more streamlined form, and modified for greater ease of entry and visibility. My design will be original and unique, until I publish the CAD rendition and 3-view drawings, you can imagine the shape of the SQ-2000 or the Stagger-EZ to get some idea of what this fuselage will look like. Details: What stays the same: - All basic MkIV fusage positions (i.e. canard at F-22, etc....) The canard/wing/spar positions remain the same. - Same weight and balance, cg position - All bulkheads located at same position, constructed w/same layup schedule (F-0 may move forward). Modfications: - elongated, sharpened, "shark nose" (see SQ-2000, Stagger-EZ, Diamond Twin Star). Nose is lofted instead of flat, with a smooth curve from tip of nose to the canopy - 3" wider at front seatback, 2" wider at rear seatback rounded fuselage bottom - canopy and turtleback lofted, and wider, extending all the way to side rails - forward canopy opens rearward (berkut style) - aft window/door combinination, uses a unique rear opening design - to be revealed later, it's awesome! - both fore and aft canopies can be jettisoned in-flight - strakes similar to Cozy Girrrl strakes, but more rounded and smoother, concave transition from fuselage to strake - shallower fuselage (2-3" removed from bottom), slightly more upright seating (pilot sholder is above side rail) - composite "hoop" roll-over structure (integerated into rear window/door "T-top") Undecided: - NACA duct or armpit scoops? - may use hydrolically actuated trailing link nose gear from the BD-5 - BRS compatability (this may eventually become the standard for all GA). I could route channels for the straps on the outside fuselage, at the seatback and firewall positions. The BRS rocket/chute tube could be attached to the back of the SB brace, with a clean shot out the top of the turtleback. I hear they're designing a version for the velocity--about the right weight I think. Construction technique: I'm busy modelling the new fuselage in 3D using Rhino 3.0. I've imported the Cozy 3D models to get all the original Cozy dimensions, and from there I am adjusting lines and lofting components to get the shape I want, while retaining all the critical dimensions and fuselage positions. I should have a rough model complete by next week, with additional details (doors, canopy, interior center consol, etc...) in by November. The biggest question I have now is how to construct this new fuselage. I could use moldless construction for portions of the fuselage and hotwire the lower corners and bottom. However, I'm leaning towards constructing a full-size solid foam "plug" and pulling female molds from the plug (I'll need to do this for the compound curves of the nose and canopy/turtleback anyway). Although it takes extra effort, this will give me a two-piece fuselage that I can just attach together and add bulkheads. If others are interested, I could also duplicate my work and manufacture addtional molded fuselages. Thoughts??? In the kit plane world, talk is cheap and lot's of back-of-napkin designs never make it into the air. I have had the small benifit of building a Cozy MkIV fuselage already, and after a year and half, am reasonably well versed in the techniques. This is a big undertaking, so wish me luck!