Nathan Gifford

A good tool set to get is the Cozy Girrrl Composite Construction Kit from Wicks. The Smart Level is part of the kit. One of the things you might want to consider is how bright your laser level is. If you are doing things like the spar alignment, you might need your room fairly dark to see the line full length.

Well another thing that would be cool is to do webcast of the 2006 forum. I'm not sure what the server requirements would be.

It would probably be a good idea to order the TERF CD which contains the construction data on this and other Rutan A/C. That way you can get familar with how the plane is constructed and what to look for. Check with other flyers as they will be able to advise you on what to look for or maybe even know things about the particular a/c you are looking at.

Is that 2" mod discussed anywhere? Are there downsides?

Check the roster in Louisiana under 'G' and see whose name is there. I won't use a smiley, but that's the way I mean it!!! Good idea about checking the roster for a 912.

There have been posts about installing Rotax engines. I know there are some issues, but I think you can find EZs flying with 912s. You might try contacting Central States Assoc. They may have more info in back issues.

Like Marc said getting back to origins of this thread, is there are a lot of factors regarding resale value of the aircraft. Certainly it will be easier to sell a well maintained aircraft with a well maintained certified powerplant, just like it is probably easier to sell tractor aircraft than pushers (FAMILIARITY). Familiarity has a great deal to do with aircraft resale. If you are asking someone to plunk down big bucks on an airplane, unless they know a great deal about what goes into that particular model they are going to pick an aircraft as similar as it can be to ones they like to fly. Experimantals compound this problem because there isn't a book of standards to same level as certified aircraft. They have to comply will all applicable FAA regs, but that is not the same as having a staff at a company that collects, collates, develops and advises solutions for manufactured aircraft. While resale is important to us all, you may want to ask the question, "do you think you will be selling anytime soon?" A lost medical, a move, or family additions may cause these things but if you won't be selling anytime soon do worry so...

If you read around on a/c engines, there is some debate on whether pilots run their engines with long life in mind. There are claims, maybe even evidence, that a/c engines are quite reliable and possibly not maintenance hogs when run correctly. The other thing that a/c engines have is a wealth of operational experience. There is an absolute wealth of experience of alternative engines running in autos, but not aircraft. Aircraft and cars not the same animal. That said, there are some nice conversions like the Eggenfellers' Subaru conversions, and Mazda conversions is getting quite close. For pusher configs things are looking better thanks to builders like John Slade, et al. I am leaning towards Subie or Mazda installations. The trick here is making sure that engine will keep the only fan on the aircraft turning.

Heck, you're already there! You are going to get lots of stares, eye rolls, etc. along the way. Wimp out! Just tell them you are building a boat until it really starts looking like a plane...

It may affect the resale, but the better question is does it impact your return on investment. If you consider the cost of installation, maintenance, and fuel you may be paid less than a certified powerplant installation, but make up for it in the final sale. The hidden cost of ownership in non-cert installations is that you do not have the same wealth of support certified engines have. The Internet has helped non-cert apps and probably the two best developed engine apps are Subie and Mazda. However, without standard installations (aka firewall aft) you are still largely on your own. Be aware that every day that passes, good installations are getting many more hours on them. John Slade's Slick Kitten is starting to purr and has even flown outside of its 40 hour sandbox with both its master and mistress on its lease. In short, keep your engine options open and remember you'll have over a year before you need start thinking of committing.

I think he said, "fat flush." It sounds like a structural change (one I'm working on too) but it ain't on the aircraft! I think you can get enough space on the simple mods that several people have already done (moving the seat slightly). With the CozyGirrrl Stakes that will probably give you all the room you need. The best solution is to go to the airshows that canards. You will likely get an opportunity to probably sit in one. Two of the better airshows are Oshkosh and Rough River (RR - October). I can attest that RR is well worth going to since there was a pile of builders camping on the airfield.

It doesn't need to be in rented plane does it? If you can find a CFI who will tech you in your plane isn't that OK (I think there is come question about whether it would have to be a freebie due to the fact that the plane was an experimental). Another question...Though the Subie and Rotary are capable of HP in excess of 200, they may not be able to produce 200+ HP in their flight configuration; in essence the engines are de-rated. Would they still be considered high performance with a de-rated engine?

The other thing to consider about leaks is what it might do to the structure. Assuming you would be running the control lines through foam what could the fluid attack the structure?

Reliability has always been a problem. Torque tubes are a proven technology. I am not saying it can't work, but remember just how critical the control system is. Maybe some wiser more knowledgeable heads will chime in here. Here are some of the issues: 1. Is the system more reliable than conventional controls. 2. How difficult is the system to maintain? 3. Is the system heavier than a conventional system? I would add to this is not what the Bateluer thinks is reliable, but what would be a reliable design. 4. Does the system cost more than a conventional system?

I think whatever pusher aircraft you select, debris in the prop is going to be a problem. Further the standard techniques for rough field departure and landings puts the prop more in harm's way. Still I have read several posts from Cozy and EZ pilots that perform flight ops from good soft strips. The other issue are the higher takeoff and landing speeds. As far as 2-seat versions of the Cozy go, no problem. It means you can haul a helluva lot of baggage. That's the way a lot of people fly the plane anyway.

Wassa matter Marc? Ya' know they could deliver 400 kts with 350hp. My only question is can they do that in level flight!

If you have a man flying in the PAV at Farnborough 2006, off tether, everyone will be impressed.

It varies. I think the T-58 turbine is around $50,000. The Solar T62 can be found around $3,500. I'm not sure about the Innodyne.

I think a number of people would argue that a fiberglass aircaft offers better survivability over an aluminum plane. The question that I think a number of canard pilots are asking is whether the landing gear contributes to rollovers on off-field forced landings. That usually ends up as a question of whether retracts or BRS affords better protection. Probably a larger factor is the higher landing speeds of EZ style aircraft. A 150 or 172 is going to touch down at a much slower than a Long, Cozy, Velo, etc. will. That extra speed gives the aircraft more energy to do disagreeable things. The plus side is that these canard aircraft have better glide ratios, are lighter, and probably quite a bit tougher than their aluminum conterparts.

First, start with the Cozy MKIV Short, rought field capable. 200 kts. 4-5 seater. Complete plans built, with quick build options. More powerplant options. Steerable nose wheel. Really, what I would like to see is just a slightly larger Cozy with better leg room. If you are looking for something really neat to get for Christmas visit the The CozyGirrrls website for their composite tool deal at Wicks.

This is the kind of horror story that does not seem all that rare and again is not the rule either. To be truthful no one knows how well the engines were treated or whether the problems slipped by the first A&Ps. But this example is why people watch very closely auto-conversions. While it is true that when you have between $75K-$175K tied up in an airplane, engine reliability is a pretty big issue. However, FAA stats are full of engine failures on certified engines. Whether the fan stops on cert or non-cert, you still have the same problem. Again, I would expect a well maintained, pampered, and properly operated cert engine to have fewer failures than a non-cert. The problem is locating that beast. What I do not know, but am following closely, how many non-cert failures were failures of the engine itself as opposed to the way the builder installed it. Granted, a failure is a failure, if the engine itself is still sound then the major problems are the design of the installation. For example, RV6guy had an engine failure because he did not notice that he was losing battery power. That is hardly the fault of the engine itself, but the problem has been corrected. A pilot of rotary powered aircraft had a failure of the radiator he was using. It was a converted a/c core--one that had failed before. I don't think he using a/c cores anymore two forced landings was enough. There have been fuel issues from piping to pumping too. And, of course, Burt Rutan agrees with Todd too. Burt always advised not test both airframe and engine at the same time. If you are going to install a non-cert put it in J-3 first to work out the bugs. Electronics over mags! I think a lot of people would do that in heartbeat. Besides if you need one fuel pump, most people would like two anyway. If you are going with glass panels, then redundant electrical systems are already a give. I think Innodyne number 7 GPH/100hp. Can they deliver that? Heck let's see the deliver the engine first! BTW, I don't doubt your numbers on the turbine, but I will give Innodyne the benefit of the doubt until someone actually flies one. The thing to remember is that the Innodyne is based on the old Solar T62 which was made for a small helicopter (that was never produced. The engine was then used in genpak for decades.) I would say if you had to commit to engine tomorrow and do not feel up to the development work, go with a cert. However, in few years a non-cert engine may well be a reality.

There are pros and cons on engine installations. There are very good reasons to go the Lycoming route. For one, you are much more likely to get your plane flying in record time. Additionally, there is far less development work to get the engine airborne. The downside is the cost and the cost of maintenance. It is true, that IF the Lycoming makes 2,000 hrs for a lot of pilots that will be enough. There flying days might be done by then. However, if the engine does not make 2,000 hours, for whatever reason, you are going to spend huge amounts of money for the repairs. The truth is that such repairs are not common, but neither are they rare. If you hang around almost any airfield, someone's plane is probably grounded waiting for an infusion of repair cash. As far as mogas goes, its been noted by Dust, et al, that many flights are going to be done on avgas. Mogas is just not that common around airfields. Still if you can do a flight on mogas, the savings are considerable. No one should just dismiss auto conversions either. A lot of pilots are working on Subarus and rotary conversions (heck even a diesel or two too). Every year these implimentations get better and better. The Eggenfellners alone boast of 400 a/c with their package. Todd is quite correct about the problems associated with putting an engine in pusher arrangement. It ain't easy. That is why so many people are watching the Eggenfellners. If their reputation wasn't as good as it is, who would care. If they put a Subaru in FWA a lot of people will notice and photograph. People who just start building today really do not have to commit to any engine today. Engine selection will be among the last things you do. By that time more powerplants will be available and maybe even one that isn't too hiddeously expensive.

Or you can try Simple Digital Systems RV6 with Subaru.

No one said it would be easy. The Eggenfellner engine package may be no cheaper than using IO-360. Rebuild costs are only somewhat steep, but nowhere near as steep as a Lycoming. The advantage of the package is that it has good reputation. There are lots of RVs flying with them. The rumored FWA (Fire Wall Aft) solution that the Eggenfellners are working on may be interesting. I just don't want s/n 001. Link to Magnum Aircraft Engines. Too bad they don't have any more info posted on their site.

Its also featured in this month's EAA magazine. Its an adapted Cozy Classic that was originally powered by a Mazda 13B.