Phil Kriley

So don't do that... I think a better safety feature would be AOA indicators.

Wouldn't that be a "show stopper"?

That's really interesting - if rolls of the stuff can be bought that are already at a 45 then I'd like to buy some too. I look forward to the answer!

Gee, that sure looks familiar! Congrats! Lookin' good!

I hope you got the plans when you bought your plane, because there are a number of fiberglass layups to be done - you don't just replace the strut - at least not on the Cozy. You will need to read the chapters in your instructions that explain how to do a layup, how to make flox, and how to prepare the strut and attach the hardware. It's not difficult if you have done this sort of thing before, but if you have never done any glass work, you might want to seek some assistance.

I used an angle duplicator and matched the angle of my arms to the M drawing, and everything worked out perfectly - did not have to notch the arms nor cut into the canard. I don't know why there have been so many problems with this step. I got the full 15/30 degress of travel. I think I had the hinge pins in place when I drilled those holes, but can't remember. I know I have not had any trouble with the hinge holes lining up.

Thanks Allen and Wayne - very interesting! No aerobatics in the Cozy for me! When I feel the desire for aerobatics, I'll get with an instructor in a plane designed for the mission.

That's a great video clip, but my favorite is Bob Hoover doing a 1-g roll in an Aerocommander Shrike while pouring tea into a glass that is perched on his glare shield! Seriously - just about any plane can do some "aerobatics", but only in the hands of a very capable (or stupid-and-lucky) pilot. All I'm suggesting is that if someone intends to do even mild aerobatics then perhaps there are better choices for that mission. Too many people have been killed with their last words being "Hey, y'all watch this!"

Just building. But what you describe is not a Split S. I used to compete in R/C aerobatics - "pattern flying". Nat Puffer is the designer of the Cozy III and Cozy Mk IV, and I quoted his response regarding aerobatics in the Mk IV. As you know, all planes are compromises. No one plane can do it all. The Cozy is designed for fast x-country flying into hard-surface airports. It is not intended for aerobatics, as I quoted the designer. It is also not intended for grass strips, although I'm sure someone will post that he has landed on grass. Caveat aviator, to quote a friend of mine...

Good luck. I think you are an accident waiting to happen. A Split S means you roll the plane inverted, then pull up elevator so that the plane is diving straight down and continue to pull until you are right-side up and flying in the opposite direction. The speeds (and G forces) will build VERY QUICKLY (please note my previous posting about pointing the plane down) and you will likely exceed VNE before you know what happened. An Immelman is basically the opposite - you pull up into a half-loop - inverted at the top - and then roll out. The big danger there is not having enough aileron response at the top of the loop to complete the roll and getting into an inverted flat spin or stall or... I've done light aerobatics (loops, rolls and spins) in a Cessna Aerobat that was intended for light aerobatics. Canard aircraft are safe in that in normal use they will not stall. But that doesn't mean they CAN'T be stalled, and if you stall one it will ruin your day...

I suppose you can do aerobatics in a C-182, but there are better planes for the task. I know that there are performers using canards, but they are very rare. I don't know if the designers have any restrictions on LE's and Cozy III's, but this is from Nat's official FAQ on his website: Q. May I do aerobatics in a Mark IV? A. No! The Mark IV is rated in the normal category. It was designed for economical, high-speed, cross- country flying. It cannot do stall or inverted maneuvers and picks up speed rapidly when pointed down. Aerobatics are not recommended.

These planes are not designed nor intended for aerobatics. I suggest you look at an RV.

You might want to consider a StaggerEz...

You're right, Wayne - they are sharp! My son and I have a bet as to who will get caught on it first! The picture I have of Relentless features a tennis ball over the point... But they really look good, so I'm going to keep them - at least until they draw my blood.

I did not sweep my canard tips up or down - instead, I tried my best to copy the wingtips on Nemesis and Relentless (and another plane that I forget the name of) - they make a graceful curve aft of the trailing edge of the elevators and end in a point. I like the way they look!

See how dumb I am? If I stick my hand out the car window when we're going 30 mph, and compare the feeling when doing the same at 60mph, it seems to me that my hand is getting pushed back a lot harder. I figured that a wing attachment (at least) would have to be stronger on a plane flying 250 knots than one flying 100 knots - but I guess I was wrong.

If you are not an engineer, then it's too complex. Why not shop for a plane that suits your needs rather than try to design/modify something to go that fast? It's one thing to design a plane that floats along at 100 knots, something else for a plane that will do 200 knots (such as the Cozy) and yet another thing to design/build/modify a plane to cruise at 250 knots. That's really fast, and the stresses involved are very high and not to be taken lightly. If you want to cruise at 250 knots, my personal opinion is that if you have to ask, then you don't have the skills/knowledge to do it yourself, so you'd be much better off with a plane that is designed for the speeds you are talking about. IMHO, of course.

Maybe you should consider building something more suitable to your needs. Perhaps a Stagger EZ might be a better fit?

That was, indeed, an R/C model - and they spliced in a real one at the end. Good entertainment, though!

My diesel tractor has glow plugs - maybe that's what was meant.

Thanks for the info Phil! Marc - Wayne - maybe we should add this to the FAQ for future builders?

I agree - and yet here we are - the FAQ calls out something that apparently does not exist. So I guess I'll send a note to Marc to ask him to either remove the FAQ or perhaps provide a different solution...? Bernie Sui's website mentions him having 3/8" od tubing that he had to ream out for an AN-3 bolt...but I THINK he meant an AN-4 bolt - which ALMOST fits.

Thanks for the link, Drew -and yes, that's what I'm doing. The only problem I'm having is finding aluminum tubing that is 3/8" OD and 3/16" ID. Or - in reality - whatever ID will accomodate an AN-3 bolt. I'm very surprised that the only solution seems to be to make the tubes at a machine shop...? Thankfully, Richard has offered to help me out. Richard - I drilled the holes last night, and the length I need is 3 3/4" - two of them. I'll be more than happy to pay for your time and materials. Thanks! See you Tuesday!

Well, I've never built a Cozy before, and so am relying on those who have gone before me. The info in the FAQs has been very useful to me up to this point - all the little "gotchas" that others have already run into that I have not had to deal with - thanks to the info in the FAQs. It made sense to me because once you have built the canard cover, you really don't have any room to move the canard forward to remove it from the pins. I assumed that what was meant by accuracy in the build had to do with the tolerance between the canard cover and the fuselage - NOT the alignment pins themselves. It seems to me that if one is accurate in fitting the canard cover, there will be very little "wiggle room" for pulling the canard forward off of the pins. Looking at the plans, that makes sense to me. But if the builder allows some "slop", then the canard can be wiggled forward and removed from the pins. Hence the desire by some to make the bolt-on alignment tabs. I really was not looking for an argument here. I just wanted to know where I could find 3/8" OD x 3/16 ID tubing. I guess I should not have said why I wanted it...

The mod is described on several of the builders' sites, and is also described, as I stated, in the FAQ's, which are distilled by reputable builders from the archives. I have not read about the "threaded sleeve" that you mention.