zies8

Looking for Canard builders in Utah in the intermountain area. Would like to visit your project and dream build. If any would be willing. ............................Mike ........West Valley Utah

If you have not looked at the vistal nav you really should see it. This thing looks like it belongs in a front line fighter jet. http://www.mc.com/vistanav/media/large.cfm

I thought y'all would be interested in the Vista nav 3d avionics. Go to............ http://www.mc.com/vistanav/media/large.cfm

Raki; Thank you for your opinion!!! I am considering seriously the route you suggest. Wayne: I agree that the berkut is a great choice. The fact that a kit costs somewhere in the $60k range is jus too much for me to bite off. Maybe a berkut project that is in the early stages that is incomplete could be an option. One with just the fuselage done without the later parts of the kit purchased. If the Berkut has an increase in the fuselage of 8" that would be perfect. I did not know that the Berkut was 8" wider. Mike

So the modification list for the "Heavy Hauling Ez" would be: 1. Fuselage width increase 4". 2. Long nose to help with W&B. 3. Cozy landing Gear. 4. Cozy wings. 5. O-360 or O-540. with Cozy engine mounts 6. Cozy nose gear. Is the engineering for the "Heavy Ez" doable due to the design parameters that are existing in the two planes and the fact that most of these mods have already been implemented on other aircraft (though not in that particular combination)? Opinions?.............

So commrades; In the end the answer to the original question ............ ........." why can the cozy claim a higher useful load than the Long Ez" is simply because the Cozy and Aerocanard plans have heavyer Shear Web and Spar Cap layups. Therefore my original idea to use Cozy IV wings on a Long Ez would work to create a higher useful load Long Ez. Thank you........ Comments on the idea of using Cozy wings on a Long Ez would be appreciated. ...................................Mike

Mac; Thank you for the graphic. The aerocanard is significantly beefier at the spar! That is very interesting. I am guessing that the added weight of the four place wing spar would only be along the lines of 20 lbs. or so. This structural upgrade would logically be called for if the useful load were to consistantly be at max gross on a Long Ez. The guys like Chris Eiselson and Jack Morrison Both with 540s on their planes must have made some modifications to their planes in consideration of useful load. Either that or they are using their planes as two place planes. I am ....ass-u-me ing .... all of this as I do not know their weight and balance figures. It would be very interesting to know how they developed their specifications as they built. Burt Rutan's original insistance that the 0-260 was the engine for and that modifications that " if you throw it up and it comes down it is too heavy" ( ie; retracts, heaters, auto pilots, etc. etc.) for the Long Ez has certainly evolved. Has all of this come about just because the structure has proven itself or are there some aviation engineers at work out there or what? Mike

Jon; Do I understand correctly? The additional 4" of wing is at the wing attach point and the wing attach geometry is identical. Therefore one could attach Long Ez wings on a Cozy and verca vica? Mike

Hey John; I realize the effort it would take to get a technical response from anyone about the exact design criteria on any of the planes. I am in the very early stages of conceptualizing my aircraft. All I am asking for is general statements as to the differences in design so that I can incorporate them into my plane. I may be stepping over the edge or walking the slippery slope when I say that I as a non engineer would like to modify an aircraft but it seems to have been accomplished by many. I appreciate the forum and their williigness to share. I look forward to meeting some of you guys at Rough River this year. ................Mike:cool: :cool:

Wayne and Raki: I have got to learn to use the "quote" feature. You both have Long Ez and Cozy IV plans. Can you tell me what the difference is between the spar cap and shear web layups between the two? I am trying to determine the design perameters that allow the Cozy to have a higher useful load than the Long Ez. It was mentioned that the landing gear is beefier on the Cozy. Is that true of the structure in the wing also? Mike

Tony: After consulting with the group here that line of logic that I am going to follow is to switch from Long Ezplans to Cozy plans. This reply to your lasst post would then become a question........Are the Cozy landing gear legs beefed up to take on the 1000 lb useful load of the Cozy? We should be able to assume so. ......................Mike

CnC; I agree whole heartedly with your entire post! I have also mentioned that the only way that alternate materials be used is if they are exact spec. materials. The hunt is on.......... :cool:

Alanon; Your insight into the process of testing materials is first hand. Thank you for sharing. This thread began with the question "why do we need to ablolutely rely on Wicks and AS&S?". It evolved into the more concise on a shoestring topic question............."Where can we find alternate economical exact spec. materials?" With that question in mind I am hoping that this thread can develop into something usefull. ............................Mike

Ok; So we have established many philisophical / legal point's. I hope that this thread makes as much practical sense to y'all as it does to me. The revised title of this thread should be ;;;; "Alternate economical sources/distrubutors for exact spec. materials".

Thank you for your intelligent reply to this thread.

Waiter; Your logic in using the materials as specified is flawless. The intent of my query is not to substitute any specified material if it is not necessary. My query is just this. If the exact materials are available at a distributor who does not specialize in aircraft materials I am on a quest to find that material. One of Burt Rutan's criteria was to provide an affordable safe reliable aircraft that the average person could build in his front room. There are some who are not concerned with cost. I salute you guys and thank heavan that we lilve in a country that provides the opportunity for everyone to be rich. We absolutely cannot investigate outside of the structural parameters, geometry and most of the publlished specifications without flawless investigation of addendums we might make. We also have a responsibility to those who are lurking in these threads who may take presumptions as specifications. All should be aware of the difference. Don't mean to insult anyones intelligence here. So in the spirit of the topic (on a shoestring) I think it would be very useful if there are those who have found exact specification materials at alternate vendors at cost savings. The goal for a lot of us then becomes less distant and therefore motivation thrusted forward. And to heck with delayed gratification at the expense of the expensive. I like this thread a lot. Building on a budget should not have to sacrifice safety. "Fly the plane first", is a term we all know well. But we must have a "plane" beneath our bottom first not a facsimily thereof. Dont let my philisophical rantings take away from the subject at hand. "Alternate economical sources for exact spec. building products" ....................Mike

So; The question then becomes this. Do the plans give exact specifications as to each material giving us the option to shop around? As a contractor I know that $1700.00 worth of foam is a buttload of foam. Granted the local insulation shop that sells foam may not have all of the particular (specified) foams in stock but it bet that they can get anything. I am incluned to believe that there is no such thing as aircraft grade fiberglass also. I have found that doing buisness with specialty shops can be very expensive. I am doing a restoration on a corvette. The specialty catalogs have a comprehensive list of restoration parts for the car and it can be very convenient and tempting to just order it all from them and forget all of the runnning around. But I have found that it is at a very huge cost for the convenience. The local Napa, Checker or Autozone just knocks the socks off of the price of the specialty catalogs. The extent to which aircraft parts are such a specialty that they can not be found outside of Wicks or AS&S is a streatch in my opinion. Granted it is the opinion of a yet to be builder. ............................Mike in Utah:cool:

I forgot to mention the reason I created this thread. I added up the cost of buying all of the matrials from ASAS. The cost of it all including plans was approximately $23,000.00. What are y'all doing to defer these costs? The pile of fiberglass and epoxy does not seem to justify 23k. Mike in Utah:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I am interested in the cozy M IV. For those of you who are building or who have built my question is this; Other than the plans which are obviously a necessary purchase, what are the items on the cozy materials list that are totally necessary to purchase from them? Can the foam be purchased from a foam supplier? Can the epoxy be purchased from an epoxy/paint distributor? Can fiberglass be purchased form a different distributor? Of the many many parts listed on the parts list how many can be made in the shop? ( broad question I know). I would like to pursue the dream and do an exceptional job of building a Cozy variant but do it on a budget. I hope I am not the orphan child who has limited funds here........... ............................Mike in Utah:cool:

Allanon; Mr. Allred has built his fuselage from plans ( from scratch ). I have been to his home in Riverton Utah and checked out his plane. He has the fuselage built, the landing gear with the axles installed and the bolt attachments on the fuselage. He has the canard approximately half done ( it needs the top skin on it. His plans are complete. He has templates, roncs canard plans from RAF, wheels, tires brakes and seatbelts and quite a few more items including two RAF videos. He has the epoxy cups that record the proper mixture of each batch (each cup corresponds with the build of the plane. Mr. Allred has done a beautiful job of putting together his fuselage. He let me sit in the fuselage. I found out that I am just too big for a stock Long Ez because he let me sit in his. If it werent for that I would definately have it sitting in my garage right now. Bob is a super nice guy. He has accurately described what he is offering. I believe that his offer is a great deal. The plans that he has are genuine licensed plans. They sell for up to $1200.00 from what I have seen. With licensed plans and a prebuilt fuselage that is as I have said beautifully done his asking price is very reasonable. You just do'nt come accross Long Ez plans every day. I am starting to sound like his cousin but I have only met him once. In my opinion Bob's offer is great because the fuselage is a less criticle part of the plane structurally. I would lean towards buying a partially built airplane preferably if the very important parts of the plane were going to be built by me myself and I. Bob's offer gives you the advantage of being in that place of doing the wings, firewall and most critical components yourself. Leaving you to not wonder what is under the skin. Even the canard is open for that interpretation not having the top skin on yet. Like I say if I were'nt going in the direction of a narrow bodied cozy IV Bob's stuff would be sitting in my garage. Hey Bob .........You owe me a cold one for the infomercial .....................Mike

Raki; You are making sense. I am looking at Cozy plans on ebay as we speak. ..............Mike in Utah

Thought you guys might like to know about this engine. Lycomng 320 with 197 SMOH. http://offer.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&item=260080601759 Mike in Utah

Waiter; Congradulations!!!!!! I watched your video.......Impressive!!!! Thanks for sharing.......... :D ..................................Mike in Utah

I knew there had to be something about the Cozy that gives it some kind of logical reason to have a higher useful load. Thanks Raki...............Mike:cool:

I am considering the possibility of building a tandem seated plane that would essintially be a Long Ez with 4" extra width at the fuselage and also incorporate the Cozy/Eracer wing and Canard structure and geometry. If y'all are game I have the following questions before I layout the cost of a set of Cozy plans and a set of Eracer plans. I already have a set of unused Long Ez plans. For those of you who are familiar with both or all three aircraft (Long,CozyMIV&Eracer): 1. Is the Wing geometry and structure the same on the three? 2. Technically speaking .... why is the Cozy structure capable of higher useful loading? 3. What allowance is made at the Cozy/ Eracer canard to allow for the wider fuselage? Is the canard overall leangth extended to maintain the original square footage of flying surface? My logic in building the above described concept is this. My son and I are large. Pilot and passenger stations would both be 260. The additional weight of the Cozy fuselage at its width needs to go. Tandem seating allows the passenger to be located on the C/G therefore making this concept more feasable still. I am anticipating a lower cost, and simpler build with the tandem design. And lastly the four place concept of the Cozy or any other cost effective homebuilt plane does not seem feasable unless all you are carrying are small children or baggage. A true 4 place aircraft would carry 4 adult passengers who are not necessarily sized to stand by Michael J. Fox in the movies. A truly capable 4 place aircraft is not cost effective IMHO. Truly capable 4 place...........http://www.aerocompinc.com/airplanes/CA7/index.htm I am looking for your educated responses to this concept. Cozy builders please take my blurb about 4 place aircraft without offense. It was not intended that way. .....................Mike