Nathan Gifford

Last I heard Jon was that they would sell whatever they had from the current stock and then close.

At first blush, it seems like it would be heavier.

Unless I missed something, the PAV only has its motors to keep it flying too. The difference is that in some multi-engine helicopters a single engine failure can allow for the aircraft to continue (derated) flight. From what I can gleen from your post, Kestrel has developed an interesting powerplant design that may offer theortical increased redundancy. Apparently, redundancy is pretty much ensured except for failure of lift mechanism (motor, control, or airfoil). You know, we would all like to see this technology work, especially the powerplant. If the powerplant would fit in a Cozy, ran on convential fuel, and had the needed power output, affordable, there would be plenty takers on this board. Heck Dust might abandon the Contential he's working on at his house right now! That's what makes so many people doubters on this board. The technology that would make a powered lift function would be able to power so many other machines, why hasn't it been introduced there first? The potential for a very public failure in the PAV is very real. Most experimenters take a go slow approach since they don't want to ensure immortality with a truly dramatic failure on the 6 PM news. And if you have a man flying in the PAV at Farnborough 2006, off tether, everyone will be impressed including Moller.

I'm not going waste too many more bytes on this, getting the system affordable, reliable, and practical is going to be the problem -- especially affordable. Also by your own statement you say the PAV is more reliable than a single engine helicopter...but the PAV is multi-engine, therefore, is it more reliable than a multi-engine helicopter?? Besides that, until one is flying the reliability and redundancy of the PAV is calculated based on the reliability of (hopefully) proven components. If these components are still in development, then the reliability of the calculations are even more questionable. That does not mean the PAV isn't everything you believe it is. It just has not proved itself yet. I will conclude with what I said earlier:...it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

The other problem with this design is that it cannot suffer an engine failure and continue flying. Helicopters and fixed wing aircraft can still continue controlled flight with a dead powerplant. BRS is a neat idea, but it still relies on pilot reaction time to deploy the system. Landings and takeoffs will test the limits of a pilot correctly identifying situations where deployment is required and activation of the system before impact. An automated system may help, but it will take time to see how many false and failed activations will occur in a new system. This also seems like another 'highway in the sky' system. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to substitute all 's' with '$' in all the brochures. This will be especially true in the US since we have an abundance of lawyers (Europe is suppose to catching the same disease). It will be increasingly difficult to keep the unit prices down. Further, there will be political problems too since it will be seen as tycoon's play toy and a fuel hungry machine (I don't see how you get pass this problem of fuel consumption for powered lift). I'm guessing if you are using electric motors, you are anticipating using fuel cells instead of batteries. This is not say it cannot be done, but it will be impressive to see a manned system at Farnborough 2006...especially if someone is flying it at Farnborough without a Moller tether.

Last chance to have you say on the FAA proposed PERMANENT GA BAN @ WASHINGTON. Only a few days left.

I'll add one more observation. I have read a number of posts that widening a Cozy wider would require significant work. The 12" wider 'King Kozy', which is not complete, was more complicated than just adding 6" to either side of the centerline. My concern is that some of these blogs and forums make such modifications seem trival. This was probably not the intent of writers but rather an artifact of the varying knowledge and skills of these people. If you read around, the issue of making the Cozy wider has lots of comments, observations, and aerodynamics stretching over years. If you read through them you will see this might be quite an endeavour and not likely to yield results in 18-24 months. I would let not building a 60" Cozy be a show stopper for you. Certainly building a LongEZ/Cozy Wide Body 2-seater will be interesting. Some of the mods suggested in this thread are quite doable and would yield a comfortable and fast plane. The flight deck should be quite nice I would imagine. So as Dust says, "enjoy the build."

It took just a little engineering to get Melville into space and not everyone is capable of doing it: ask the other X-Prize losers many of whom had degrees too. You probably can engineer a 60" wide LongEZ derivative. After all the Cozy was derived from the Long. However, there is more to it than just sitting down at computer with AutoCAD and widening the fuselage. Nat ran into problems with the canard when he flew the Cozy. He did not discover that problem until flight testing. Based on his flight test data he sawed his canard shorter. Again you need to be sure you understand just how easy it is to take an otherwise docile aircraft and turn it into an unflyable machine. Don't let that stop you, just realize modifying an aircraft plan is not trival task.

...AND THE GROUND...

The widest Cozy derivative (or should it be LongEZ derivative??) I heard of was 12" and that was a major undertaking (and it ain't flyin yet!!) Its a lot more than just widening the structure. You might do much better building the Cozy as two-seater. Least ways, I think it would be a safer ship to build and fly.

I still have a lot of doubts about BRS. I think it is an expensive device, in cost, weight, and size, and has not proven itself effective in types of accidents suffered by GA aircraft. The other option is to put the money for BRS (about $12K or more) into to other items/equipment that may provide a better margin of safety. $12K spent on flight instrumenation, power plant reliability, or flight training would probably generate better results. Besides all that, it adds $12K+ to the cost of building your airplane.

The big problem with the 540 is weight. The 540 at RR was in a highly modified Cozy. The pilot (Chris?) did not elaborate on what mods he did do to the Cozy frames besides the obvious ones.

Yep Remi, that's what I was told too.

So for us that haven't gotten to that point in construction you did not (initially) install a hard stop on the rudder?

I've attached a photo of Cozy MKIV with full-span rudders. I also removed the N numbers since I don't know if the pilot wants to talk about this mod or not. Saturday night there was some discussion on whether full-span rudders were a good idea or not. Dust noted that Nat's old plane had rudders 3" longer than plans because the original MKIV was build without lower winglets. Sunday morning I found this MKIV with full-span rudders. When we asked the pilot why he had them full-span he said his previous project had full-span rudders and it gave him much better crosswind performance with no negative attributes. When he built his Cozy, he did the same. We do not know what flight testing may have been done. Not all my picts came out, but I also think the Stagger EZ also has full-span rudders. It at least seems to me that this would be a really nice mod to have especially with internal bell horns. Besides crosswind handling, it might also help during landing descents. Thoughts?

Where is his web site??

I agree with Jerry. I would add, if you do not have both, build the plane first. Once you have the plane, you will build up the hours quickly.

Another tip, building airplane construction really has 3 phases (4 or 5 if you throw in finishing and flight testing): airframe, instruments, powerplant. After you have gotten significantly through building your airframe then you can start to worry about avionics and powerplant. Basically, it is a good idea to wait on these. Further, by the time you need to start worrying about the powerplant, newer powerplant solutions might well be available (like Eggenfellener Subie, or rotary). Avionics too may offer significant enhancements at lower cost by waiting.

More cushion, longer adjustable rudder pedals.

It is a very nice plane, but to the best of my knowledge no plans are available.

Really the MKIV fits your bill, unless you want tandem seating. True, there is not much official builder support for the MKIV, there are loads of unofficial support (ie this site and others). The only other option are the Velocity series of a/c. That is spelled with $$$. Still rememeber these $$$ have created the environment where: a) You can actually pay for a ride in an a/c. b) There is a real development program for enhancements. c) Factory support. Restating your criteria, you want a fast, cross country aircraft to carry two people side-by-side, plus baggage with 160+ hp engine. The best fit would be the Cozy. While there have been 160hp Cozies built, but from the comments I have read they would rather have a 180.

FWF by Tracy Crook. Already flying 13B and Renesis in an RV.

While there are people installing Subarus in Cozys, I have not seen any offerings by the Eggenfellners for a firewall aft installation. They seem pretty adamant Sun-N-Fun 2005 about pusher arrangements. If you point to a specific Eggenfellner engine package product for pusher aircraft please post it.

Are any details know yet? What happened on approach?

Its pretty hard to get an exact number of flying Cozys, but there are quit a few of them out there. Not as many as RVs. One other thing to remember is a number of canard designs are based on Burt Rutan's Vari/LongEZ designs. While they are different birds, they are somewhat alike for comparison purposes. The nice thing about these planes are that the plans have been around for over decade. The Cozy is a popular canard aircraft and many of the bugs have been worked out. Be aware that there has not been an inflight structural failure of a properly built aircraft. The design is forgiving of some errors, but if you build it bad enough then you can break it. There are Cozys with thousands of flight hours. It speaks well of the design. Flying any a/c outside of CG range invites problems or death. I don't think the Cozy is any more 'delicate' to CG than any other aircraft. What I do think makes pilots jumpy is the thought of being 'locked in' a stall condition. But if you think about it what happens to tractor a/c at aft CG? Is that condition any less deadly? I think not. Marc Zeitlen may chime in here, but the Cozy is one of the few aircraft that has been tested in its CG range. The problems I have read about since the CG testing of several years ago, are of pilots who have been flying outside the CG range or never established the proper CG range of the aircraft in the first place. I think one of the reasons you read about it, is that pilots transitioning from 172s or Warriors aren't usually adding ballast to keep these ships in trim. So this is a somewhat unusual thing for these pilots to do. How many pilots do you know that just jump in the airplane after doing the most cursory of preflights? Another thing some pilots have done is acrobatic flight. This is a real no-no. The aircraft was built to be a cross country bullet. It does that job quite well. While the airframe is very strong, the aircraft is not designed for inverted flight and inverted flight can get you into some real trouble. I think the hours you build the better. How much time is required to be good Cozy pilot, I would not hazard a guess. I read that a number of pilots recommend getting some high speed approach time before flight testing. The Cozy lands a lot faster than a 150, 172, or Warrior. The plane is certainly not for everybody. You may as well know it now, but you have to stay ahead of the plane. If you are flying along at 170+ knots you will be knocking off about 3 miles/minute. So that is about 1.5 minutes to cross the average airspace around a number of GA airports? Geeze that's cool! But that means you have to stay on your toes less you intrude into airspace that could land you in the evening news! But this is true of not just Cozys, but any other fast ship too. Still remember this plane will take a few years to build. During that time you will get more exposure to the Cozy. You will also probably get some Cozy time as other pilots in the this kith will probably take pity upon you and help you learn to fly this beast well. All Cozy pilots want the Cozy safety record to continue.