Arbiter

RGlos, I think you hit it on the head right there about media sensationalism. I'm not sure people would care what kind of plane the person saved the people in. It's been my observation that people care about objects when people are killed because they want to blame the object over the human who may have been in error. The facts do work against us, though because we are still more accident prone per 10,000 flight hours than general aviation aircraft. As I said before though, the FAA paint homebuilts with a broad brush in their reporting, including ultralights and such into their experimental category. Since GA aircraft are certified to the same rigorous safety standards it's appropriate to put them in the same category. However, home-builts are all put into one category because we don't have a rigorous process for testing even though some are clearly more safe than others ... Just some more thoughts , very valid point though about us not having a lot of resources to improve the image. Now, if we had some-one famous who built their plane and they could speak as a counter-point to the news, then the story would be re-balanced so to speak . What is needed I guess would be a counter-arguement like they have in politics (1 republican guru and 1 democrat etc...)... But I don't think we got the fair perspective that brings. Whether we like it or not, that director guy had some good points given the current situation. We should have dialogue about training near and around populated areas, and we should perhaps talk about the kind of aircraft that are allowed to fly into that airspace. Does this mean there aren't counter-arguements to these restrictions, of course! Neither POV is completely right or completely wrong, but in this case from what I saw, the counter-points were not made, and that's partly why the story looks less objective than it should be. -Chris Z.

The whole point of this thread is how can we improve our image. If we can't get the authorities to care and do more investigating, who is the public going to believe, us? If this is true, then more investigation oversight will be needed to ensure that they figure out what happened.... also, if they do a crappy job investigating how do you know for a fact that "most" crashes are not structural? I gathered that from when I read the NTSB reports from the Cozy's but if they aren't doing a thorough investigation then I don't see how those reports can be trusted. Either way, we're screwed from that avenue. Again, since this is an improve the image thread I would point out that allowing crappy aircraft to be built doesn't help. I agree with you from that POV of having the freedom for anyone to build, but at what expense to image? Perhaps nothing will come out of this story, afterall J Denver died years ago in a Long EZ and it didn't seem to change anything, then again I am a youngin and can only speak about my observations thus far . Did not know this previously, thank you for the information . Still, who will the public listen to? The EAA or the FAA? It's a hard pill to swallow, but I think public opinion is more swayed by the FAA, not that they are more qualified as you say, but it's the truth as I see it. I design jet engines for a living, I am aware of the cost involved in doing this. It is a long road, but a certified aircraft has a better image of approval than the big experimental on the side of the airframe. I agree with you that it would be very costly, but it could improve the image of that particular aircraft model... Again to your point, who investigated those accidents thoroughly enough to know they weren't structural? You said the NTSB doesn't, so how do we know for sure? Have you personally seen the wreckage of those aircraft or have the accident investigation background to know? You very well may, but the NTSB has the final official word on what happened. Like I said, they point to non-structural in all the reports I read, but you called into question their thoroughness... Also, I am not suggesting that you go out and test a wing before you build another one! I am saying you test the prototype as a designer. People don't get killed as often in certified aircraft partly because they test rigorously. Thus, these aircraft have a better public image. They see the engineers and the rigs testing the structures. From the NTSB reports I've seen I would agree that whatever accidents appeared non-pilot error seem to revolve around this. If we assume they are correct, (see above responses on NTSB validity) then this definitely makes sense. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed on the systems safety and manufacture? Are any of the manufacturers held to rigorous standards? If not, it may not be a problem to us because they know if they have a shoddy product, it will be short lived, but the public won't see it that way.... I wouldn't go that far, but you basically gave the media a quote about how many home-builts wouldn't pass testing from a reputable source in the building community... I have seen a number of home-builts including canards in their final stages of completion. Yes my experience is certainly limited compared to yours, but it doesn't make my point any less valid; testing puts people at ease, maybe we could come up with a way to prove home-built aircraft safe to the public without huge costs to any one person? Doesn't this contradict what you were saying above about marginal safety factors? Over-design means, to me at least, better than marginal safety factors... System failures happening left and right seems like something we could do better about, and if it's the primary driver, maybe we as a community could tackle that issue. Any thoughts Marc on why that is, or anyone else? If it's not structural and it's systems, then maybe we can do something about it as a group . Poor grammar on my part. I was referring to Weight and Balance. This seems to be a bit over-the-top. I am suggesting a way to compromise and hopefully improve our image as a home-built community. Do you just not like testing, or is it the increased cost to the designers which will get passed on to us? I would hope it's the cost side... I DONT believe it would be disasterous, but it could come with un-wanted consequences, but it could also improve image. Initially what would likely happen though is the public would say "There! They got the regulation those rascal home-builders needed" and it would not be overly positive. However, over time as they saw the over-sight they could no longer directly blame us for accidents. If you don't want to talk again about the subjects I bring up, don't post to them. I do the research if I have time, and maybe I want fresh perspective on it rather than some older posts from years ago. Sorry, but forums are for asking questions, and many people here are more than happy to find the post they made and post a fresh link... If people don't want me here they should say so, I'll find somewhere else to talk and annoy people with my questions and insights if that's how people feel. Bottom line is I came to this forum looking for friends and colleagues in home-built aircraft. Most people are fine and answer questions as they see it, which is what I want, honesty and perspective which help to temper my own ambitions. But, I do have a problem with the people who blow off others (This is not directed at you Marc) just because they are armchair at this point. Just because someone doesn't have direct experience (I.e. they have the plans and are laying fiber) doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. How many builders are engineers, how many are just pilots, or not pilots at all and are going to get their license at a later time in the build? All bring different perspectives and knowledge to this forum, all valuable , even if they haven't lifted a hammer yet... The people who have built should be encouraging others to build, but I have had a number of posts back to me that have really made me think twice about whether this is an inclusive community in that regard. For people who have started building it seems fine, eveyone's buddy buddy; but for those still dreaming there are a number of people who post a lot that like to take out the AAA gun and shoot at people for thinking big or just dreaming to build. If Rutan hadn't been dreaming big we wouldn't have this forum. Sometimes it really bugs me how people approach answering posts. They don't take a lot of time to think about how the answer can be interpreted (I am definitely one of those people too) and it comes off differently than perhaps intended. All discussion here should be un-heated, and honest. No one I have seen post here has been 100% wrong in what they say, just remember that.... Talk to y'all later, sorry for the rant at the end ... I thought it was relevant because it's not just about public image, it's about the image we all project as builders, dreamers, and fliers to those who are "outsiders" to the building community. -Chris Z.

It's interesting that no one ever thinks to have people not build homes near airport approach and departure corridors... It's always the pilot's fault he hits a house. Landing and Take-off are the most critical phases of flight, don't live in an area where these phases occur unless you know and accept the risks... Enough bantering on my part, that's only partially the issue. The aircraft still crashed, the question is why? I read the story but it didn't sound like there was any conclusive evidence as to what exactly happened. Since nothing can be ruled out, all of this is pure speculation on anyone's part, does anyone have more facts they can share? As for the director, he doesn't have much of a point, like I think most would agree. How many times does an experimental aircraft make the news when it crashes? This one I think only made it because it dropped into someone's house. I seem to recall a number of airline accidents in my brief history on this rock that have landed far larger chunks of aircraft in people's houses, yards, and cities. I agree with Cozy Girrl that this guy is really using this as a political game chip, and the media, who is always SO well informed, can't get enough of it. It does bug me that they seem to rationalize all builders into a category, especially when the whole category is so broad. We build everything from ultra-lights to high speed jets, some are more safe than others, and other builders are more qualified than others.... People who buy and did not build aren't necessarily the problem either. If it was mechanical failure, then it's ultimately potentially a builder issue. Could be maintenance as well, BOTH of which could affect regular factory built aircraft. Modifiers aren't necessarily the problem either. There have been cases where it's caused problems and loss of life (John Denver from what i gather is the most famous case) but there are plenty of modified aircraft out there that will not fall out of the sky. The key is judicious thought, and thoughtful consideration of a modification within a peer group and experts. There is always risk in making a change, but calculated ones can be safe, and often are. As far as improving image goes, I would start with qaulifications. Maybe builders should be qualified to begin a build by the FAA? Demonstrate building prowress, or more during build safety inspections? This way, stuff found early on in the build could be corrected before it is burried. Another avenue, is pilot training. Maybe more rigor needs to go into transitionary training. Enhanced safety courses. Maybe if the design has been built by enough people, maybe they could get it certified, and then they wouldn't have to call it experimental? This would bring a whole host of issues I don't want to get into in my post, but feel free to expand on it. Most of what I said above has to do with an assumption that mechanical failure is the primary cause of accidents, which I think is initial public perception/reaction. I think that because people are no longer used to having to make stuff on their own that the general public is losing confidence in non-factory built aircraft. But they also don't know how prohibitive the costs of factory built aircraft makes this sport. A new Cessna is $225,000, and you can home-build for a fraction of the cost and get a better performing plane.... If safety is their number one, why not get a couple of homebuilts and push them to the breaking point? Why not prove the structural integrity of even a shoddily built one? If we are to improve public image, we need to put our foot down and show them it takes just as much if not more weight to destroy our aircraft, even if it's not built well... Or is some-one afraid it won't pass? I think it would, at least the canards I've seen here . Are new designs put through their structural paces by their designers? In my mind, the designer can only really affect how the airframe handles against structural loads, and ensures that under their assumptions (I.e. strictly built to specs/plans) that the aircraft is balanceable, and handles well in the air. If there are no designer lead standards for testing airframe integrity then there's no way to know or compare. Maybe part of the answer would be to have an abbreviated certification program for the airframe or something.... Alright, enough rambling from me, hope some of it made sense. Look forward to the continued discussion, this is definitely an important topic! -Chris Z.

It could be, on the other hand, these mods can inherently become part of an adventure. One of the nice things about plans is the brush it gives you is virtually limitless in possibility. Now, like you said, if you mod too much, that's going to cost you in time, and that is the consequence. Another potential consequence is safety, and re-work. For me, I have pretty much settled on Aerocanard plans, the SX version, which gives me the added comfort I want pretty much per plans . The modification I am going to do has more to do with cockpit layout than structural changes, so I am very confident that with thought (And a little 3D modeling) I can do the mods I want without much trouble. Actually, with only 1 person in the front there should be more room for controls and such, and in the back there will be the "stock" room for controls with the added Aerocanard comfort . I think as long as mods aren't delving too deep (Notice I didn't say at all) into the structural aspects of the plan, then they should be executable without too much hassle. Of course, as one would point out, I am only armchair at this point, but I think once I get into the build, I will know a lot better what my limitations are. The designs are certainly timeless, but as always, can be improved upon. I say, if people want to build to plans, awesome, they get into the air faster and it may suit them just fine. I am a tinkerer by heart, and I look forward to spending countless hours in a Mock-up Cockpit laying everything out ... I will be satisfied doing this (Ah the child in me comes back out!) because it gives me pause to think long and hard about every detail, which will allow me to build a better and safer plane in the end! Good luck to all those who have started already, and for those of us who are still just dreaming, don't give up on the dream, there's always a way to make it happen! Night, errr I mean Morning, all! -Chris Z.

Only going to have 1 youngling, and not enough useful load for the family... We're bigger, not the same size as the "Perfect 170 Lb" person aero engineers plan for .... If I want to take the family somewhere as a whole we'll drive or fly commercial/air taxi. Let's be realistic, unless you have a fairly large aircraft (Above 172 or warrior size) it's not comfortable on longer trips, and on top of that, you can't carry full fuel with more than 2 grown people in there, so no point on trips : ).... We'll see though, I am more interested in a plane for Boondoggling with my wife, my kid, or my friend. Maybe there will be room for 3, we'll see ! -Chris

Hi John, BTW, thanks for the Forum! It's a really great place to get information! To answer your question, I am going to try and contact them today sometime! I tried this weekend but no answer . In terms of magnitude of modifications, my main mod if I did Aerocanard would be going to 2 place Tandem Seating instead of 4. I would posit that not much will change in the way of structure, but I may alter the seating positions of each person with some extra lay-ups. We'll see, but thanks for the advice! Also, why doesn't the quick-reply option work? I keep scrolling and trying to click on that to reply, but can't get it to work, is it disabled?? Thanks! -Chris

I do notice quite a bit of pessimism from people about modifying these aircraft. I am not sure if it's more of "Don't do anything that if you blow up you smear good names" or if it's more of "These plans were perfect when they were made, why would you ever dream of changing them". Maybe it's neither... Also, since they are 30 years old, can one of these guys get their airfoil designs properly digitized?!?! I have been searching day and night for a data file containing points for the Cozy IV, Aerocanard, wing and canard airfoils. I know they are not the same as the original Epplers, so I want to get them right when I do my 3D model. This way I can have some configuration control when I do modifications, and I can see in real-time the implications my choices are making. I am curious though, why did Rutan stop selling plans and such? I thought Long EZ plans were very popular... Anywho, I am just rambling at this point in my post... Anyone care to share either the moment they decided to build, Very first day of build, when they got plans the first time experiences. For me, it has been a long road. I guess when I was very young my Opa kept showing me kitplanes magazines. Every year we would go through the special section with the plans you could buy or the kits. He always said he was going to do it. He wanted to build a small easily buildable plane, I did not. I wanted something fast, sleek, and kick butt, drop your jaw on the tarmac when you see it aircraft (They don't sell plans for a 1/3 scale Tomcat do they? ). He even build his house with a large enough basement especially for it. Unfortunately, we never did build a kit plane, and he has since died. Fast forward to a few months ago. I met a person at my work who was building a Cozy. He and I have been talking for a while now, sometimes at great length about his endeavor. I then remembered what my Opa and I had planned to do, but never did. I decided then, that no matter what, I was going to get a kit, and build it. It may sound corny, kinda like "For Grandpa" ish, but it's not the primary reason for me doing so, only a catalyst. I realized recently, that I have been ignoring my basic need for flight. I've been licensed since 17, and it has been on the back-burner since I've been in school, gotten married, and have a full-time job. NO MORE. I can't ignore one of the fundamental parts of my life that brings me great joy. So, I hope that building a plane will give me reason to continue flying (And keeping current hopefully) and a goal at the end of a long adventure. I hope my wife gets on-board with me and helps and supports me in my build. I know I can find the time if it's a priority, and I think I can find the money over time to do it the way I would like to. We'll see, But enough of my rambling. Hope to hear some others' stories! Take care! -Chris Z.

Are what I am seeing here mods, or plans per Aerocanard and Cozy? Great discussion so far! Thanks! -Chris

Hey Joe and Cozy Girrl, Thanks for the advice! I think that would point me more toward the Aerocanard plans since the rear seat is already modded a bit larger. I will see what happens, and thanks for the info on the fuel system! Take care! -Chris

Hey Joe, Thanks for the reply. I can see the benefit of a system like this, do you know of any major potential drawbacks? How do you plan to monitor the fuel levels? Also, how do you keep the fuel from flowing through the sump into the other tank and making your W&B side to side funky? Do you have a check valve for each side or something? -Chris Z.

Is the depth issue you are talking about something you have used as a mod yourself? Still looking for a side by side comparison Cozy Vs. Aerocanard Anyone have comments about the differences in the fuel systems? I hear the Cozy is a tank selector and AeroC is a sump each tank drains to. Are there benes and drawbacks to both, if so, what are they? Thanks! -Chris Z.

Hi Folks, I heard that the ACanard has a sump instead of a fuel switch.... Any opinions on whether this is better than having a fuel selector? What are the considerations/concerns/things to think about for both kinds of systems? Are there major drawbacks to either kind of system? Thanks! -Chris Z.

Sorry, no interest in this approach, though practical, it is ugly from my incessant need for symmetry :-P (No offense to people who have stagger EZs, it just doesn't sit well with me) Another way to get more leg-room is to have the person sit both more high off the bottom of the fuselage, and bring the back of the chair toward the rear of the aircraft so they are sitting more straight (What might this clash with in the back?... -Chris Z.

Can Anyone confirm these statements? Thanks for the airfoils!, hopefully I can get it working right in my airfoil software. Thanks for the input. IF ANYONE ELSE KNOWS THESE AIRFOILS PLEASE POST THE NAMES OF THEM HERE , THANKS! -Chris Z.

Lynn, Thank you for letting me know! It sounds like it's not worth the effort to do the mod to put rudder pedals (Nevermind how cramped it is back there already) in the back since they make the craft behave as if they were airlerons. It's also good to know they have that quality, I did not know that and will be useful for my transition flights . Was the copilot in the Long EZ able to see forward? I intend to try and raise the copilot so they have a rather un-obstructed view forward.... Comments are welcome, this is all great points and advice! BTW the "toilet" is awesome! -Chris Z.

Hey Folks, Anyone had the time or the fun of gathering Airfoils for the various aircraft and any NACA data? The data isn't too hard to come by, but I would like to know the Airfoils that are used for the Cozy Mk IV, Long EZ, and AeroCanard wings, winglets, and canard. If anyone has these airfoils, I would love for them to let me know. They are not modified airfoils are they? Thanks guys for your help, my main purpose is I'd like to create a detailed 3D model of my build so when I am doing modifications I can do fit/clash checks and such. Plus, I have a virtual wind tunnel program I wouldn;t mind using to check out the characteristics of the wings and such to get a better feel for the aircraft. Thanks! -Chris Z.

Hi Rick, Thank you for the great advice. Were the plans you saw for the Acanard to compare to your Cozy plans the new ones they supposedly have out there? I do plan to go to Rough River this year, I am really excited! I will probably be the one walking around looking all bright eyed and in wonderment! On the fuse widening issue, if I go totally Tandem I think I can Make the back seat more comfortable for the copilot. I am not sure I will actually move the front seat back, since it has a 400 lb capacity I would be fine in my current status @ 263 Lbsish! The reason I am thinking of going with the ACanard is they have incorporated the stretch of the Cozy in the back and added some head-room which would allow me to take some of it back when I go to make the seats less laid back and higher up in the back for visibility... I think I am going to make my cockpit laid out a lot like a fighter, I want it to feel powerful and ergonomic! Does anyone know if the Cozy Cores Eureka sells are good for an ACanard? Still looking for a side by side page comparison for a chapter in the Cozy and ACanard plans... Did Acanard finally update their plans with the latest bulletins from Nat? Safety is my #1 concern, and if the Acanard plans are missing them, I may have to think about buying the CoZy plans and Modding them myself... Thanks! I look forward to more of your posts! Thanks folks! -Chris

Hi Folks, Been working on settling down on which plans to purchase. I have seen a lot of posts about Aerocanard Vs. Cozy plans. Some say you need both to build an ACanard... What I would really appreciate is someone with recent ACanard Plans and Cozy MkIV plans to scan a couple pages from the same chapter or part of the build (Just enough to get a flavor for how different they are) to compare apples to apples. I thought some pages from the Fuse Bulkhead chapter would be useful, or some other more complicated area just to reference. In addition, what are people's current thoughts on: The benefits of either set of plans. For me I intend to turn either one into a tandem 2 seat version (NOT INTERESTED IN LONG EZ WITH WIDTH MOD AT THIS TIME) for lots of extra room and with more headroom. This seems to point toward the Aerocanard, but I am not totally certain. Could I use the Eureka Cores for the wings and Canard for the Cozy and the Aerocanard? This vendor seems to do excellent work, and I would not dream of trying this on my own when such a great source for the wings and canard exists! Is there any modification required to the Cozy Cores to make them useable for the Aerocanard? The drawbacks (Are there areas where one is more clear than the other, or something that frustrates you about a certain section) How are the illustrations for each set? What about the full sized drawings? Any chance to get the CAD versions for either one from the manufacturer? I know some people have made copies of them, but my thinking on this is both to CAD in the mods I want to make, and to be able to make templates out of metal using CNC machine so I have precise templates (If I don't get Eureka Cores, which I would like to do (AWESOME WORKMANSHIP!!!)) for the wings/winglets, canard, and fuse. Does each set of plans spell out warnings anywhere for "If you screw this up you will definitely die?" and if so, are either one better at this than the other? Safety is important afterall... If Templates in CAD are not available how do people make lasting templates? I hope everyone is enjoying their build so far! I am hoping to be purchasing plans within a few months! Looking forward to the posts! -Chris Z.

Hey Lynn, Thanks for the advice and the encouragement to try something different with the plans : ). I am thinking about re-creating the details in CAD so that I can manipulate them and have everything fit together well along the way. My main concern when doing a modification will be to make the aircraft flyable and landable by the second passenger. I have some ideas, but it sounds like the rudder is out for the person in the back. I think I could give them better visibility by raising their seat and modifying the turtledeck to take a higher canopy. This would allow better seating visibility from the back out the front of the aircraft permitting the people in the back to operate the aircraft visually. We'll see what happens I guess, right now I gotta focus on saving to get some plans and such, should be exciting to see how it turns out! I would be interested to hear some more about this scaled up Cozy and its performance... -Chris Z.

Hey Lynn, Thanks for the advice on the rudder pedals, that will make it much easier I think to modify, I'd still like to try and get creative... MY main concern with not having rudder pedals would be emergency controls. If something were to happen to the pilot, I would at least like to give the person in the back a fighting chance of getting the aircraft on the ground. You are right about Nat re-designing the Long EZ to the Cozy. The point I was simply making was Nat did mor re-design than I would be doing before he called it a new aircraft, and his purpose was to sell the plans : ). Another thought I had was going too a design of the Cozy where the pilot and copilot were still side by side, but the cabin was wider, and you forgoe the rear seats and make it a nice bagage area and move the pilot and copilot back in the aicraft maybe 10-12" or so. This to me seems like a lot more work and uncertainty than modifying the Cozy to a Tandem, but it could be done. That thought put me into thinking about an SQ2000 I think, but I don't believe they sell plans anymore.... If they do, where can I get them, because I'd like to still have side by side if possible, but as has been discussed it would be hard to fly or even dangerous with more then 440 lbs in the front seat in this config... Anywho, Keep the thoughtful discussion going! If not rudder pedals, what would be an alternative in an emergency situation? -Chris Z.

Phil, I agree that the mods to be made require careful thought, but essentially it would be a larger Long EZ, and making the mods in a similar manner for the flight controls to the Long EZ style is what I plan to do. The rudder pedals for the rear seat are going to be challenging, but getting over the heat duct issue isn't (This is for edge 513). I've already said I will be raising the rear seat a bit. People make bench seats out of the front often on the Cozy and get through the issue, so I am not worried about that seat at all. To me, it's mainly a question of the controls because they will be slightly more in-board than the originals (Due to sitting centered). I do not believe that re-routing them will be overly complicated, but it will be challenging to do it in a thoughtful manner without adding much weight to the airframe or complexity. I think I'll get ahold of some Long EZ plans and see how they handle the tandem controls and go from there. Any suggestions on what to do about the rudder pedals in the back? I think there isn't as much room to slew the controls in the back, so maybe the front seat needs to be higher up (Gotta watch the leg room for front seat though through the IP) or something, anyone with bright ideas? As far as the naming goes, it's still a Cozy Mk IV airframe with a modified cockpit... I realize people don't want the name tarnished because of an accident in a plane someone modified, but it's still a Cozy airframe. If it were to crash, that's what people would call it... People put small mods in all the time, does that make the aircraft not a Cozy? If I mod my plans, and I rename it can I call it my own design? If it's nice and performs well, should I make my own plans and sell a 2 seat plan based off the Cozy? I think I should be able to if I designed the mod myself and had to rename the plane type because of it based on what you are saying (We won't discuss the legal aspect of this)... I do not believe that I should do that though, because it's Nat's over-all design (Airframe and all the other really important stuff critical to flight and performance), but at what point do the mods become a new design entirely? This is more philosophical than I want to get into here, but the point is I am not changing the name of the model of aircraft I am going to build, too much of it would still be the same. Nat designed a great aircraft, and I think given my requirements, it could be made better, and there's no good reason that modifications can't be done and done safely if you take the time to think them through. These are all good points to consider, and I am especially interested in hearing how the Long EZ controls are laid out tandem and what might be done about the rudder pedals in the rear seat for the Cozy. Thanks guys, keep em coming! -Chris Z.

Can't see the picture, it has the Red X of death in it... I am sure it is Luxurious though -Chris Z.

Hi Folks, After some discussion in the modifications forum about front seat weight issues, and the potential issues of expanding the Cozy Mk IV to fit myself and my friends in the front seat, I think I have settled on modifying the Cozy back into a 2-3 seater. I do not want a traditional Tandem and would welcome the expansive space gained by pilot/copilot if it were just 2 ppl in the Cozy. This presents some interesting potential challenges but none of them seem insurmountable. 1. If I went to a 2 place Cozy I would want to have a right side stick on both seats, any thoughts on how to accomplish this? Anyone have any schematics from other Tandem designs with the same issue? The same thing goes for the LH throttle quadrant. 2. I would like to modify the rear seat to be functionally useful as a pilot/copilot seat. This means to me that it would need to have good forward visibility. My thoughts were to extend the canopy 2-3 inches towards the back and modify the copilot seat to rise up a bit (Think Apache). I know I can do custom canopies with people, but are there significant issues that people know of regarding what I am speaking of? 3. Because I would essentially be doing a 4 place aircraft with 2 places I would have some significant room to play with, any idea what kinds of fun things (Yes, Bells and Whistles) I should think to install? With full fuel and 2 heavy people I would still have about 90 lbs of extra stuff I could put in the aircraft.... Any thoughts? 4. Long flights would be possible, and likely. From a comfort standpoint, has anyone outfitted their Cozy with a long range lavatory system (Like the space shuttle toilet?) I know it's a bit gross, but long flights would not be possible by "holding it" and I was thinking I might have some interesting ideas come out of the forum with this one... Any thoughts? Mine right now would be a "tube and tank" arrangement.... Thanks in advance for your thoughtful comments! -Chris Z.

There is a person who widened his Cozy 3 Inches and has been flying fine in my area for a little while now, and others have done it successfully too... Hard to believe it's a real problem... It is what it is... You cant 'just make it wider and have it "work"' at that FSW. Clearly you are not understanding that people have modified this aircraft in the manner I am proposing and have flown, they are not Armchair people. I am at this point, but I know it works (The reality you are talking about) fine, at least with 3 inches, which may be plenty for my needs. I realize that the FSW issue is not solved by the widening, only the cabin comfort is. I'll put the person in the back... Or make it a wide 2 seater :-P (Blasphemy right?) perhaps. We have conflicting philosophies about homebuilts, IMHO the plane is not the plane until it is built, all you get is plans, which is a compass so to speak. If you strictly follow your "google map" you get to your destination, but you may have missed out on the adventure along the way. Yes the end product has to make sense from a physics perspective, and my situation clearly offers unique challenges. I am glad I can see past the plans and help realize a little better design than Burt or Nat's has for my own requirements. Why re-invent the wheel? If I wanted to, I'd design my own aircraft from the ground up to solve my problems, but the Cozy is the closest Canard to my requirements, and I believe I can make it work, and work safely. Believe it or not, Nat and Burt (No offense to them, they are clearly awesome dudes) did not design the PERFECT aircraft, so tweaks are OK, you just have to know the principles and the potential pitfalls and mitigate them... Thanks for your input though! Andrew, Thanks for the lesson in Deep stall. I'd be curious to know the flight conditions Nat was testing under. In the conditiond of the wider canard, it is a problem since it's so much further forward of the CG, any additional canard area would result in a much higher moment. I am assuming the CG is relatively close to where I would expand the aircraft, and thus the pitching moment would be greatly reduced from that of the canard (The changes might also put some area behind the CG, providing some counter moment so to speak). The lesson here perhaps is if I were to expand the width, I should do it as evenly as possible around the empty CG so when I sit in the pilot seat, the CG moves forward of the new "area created" giving it a slight pitch down moment in flight compared to the plans... This warrants more thought when I get the plans, thanks for pointing out that potential issue! I probably don't want to make the airframe "duckbilled" by expanding only the instrument panel bulkhead. Rather, I would maybe want to expand that 3 inches, and the front seat 4 or 5 and then the rear seat 4 or 5, so that the bulk of the fuse planform change occurs over the CG... Good point! Also, if it's an aft CG limit issue (by your post it sounds like it is) my fat a** will help get the nose down and the aft CG limits won't be a problem .... See, there are Bene's here to having a lot of weight in the front... Thanks for the posts guys! -Chris Z.

Andrew, We're talking about 6 inches at most (This is probably a lot more than I actually would do) and I would have serious reservations about building a kit that has that little margin in its main wings and canard before the Fuse would generate its own lift and create a deep stall issue over the wings. All together a 6 inch expansion would probably be about 8 sq ft of planform area increase (~10% total planform area) if it was straight all the way back. I plan to expand at the panel bulkhead, the front seat, and the rear seat (but not as much, since it needs to be faired back into the original design) so it will probably be ~2-3 Sq ft increase. The Fuselage generates lift now in a positive angle of attack, so I don't see any real problem creating a deep stall (Someone go into more detail if they have it if I am wrong) by adding 2-3 sq ft of planform area.... The biggest issue I see expanding the fuse would be more centered around the structural concerns (Rigidity, moment, CG etc)... And those can be mitigated at the cost of additional weight spread judiciously around the airframe. You could probably make up most of the performance impact by getting some more horses out of the engine, but those are details to be gotten into at a less speculative time (I.e. when I have plans in hand...) Why are people so worried about this mod? Hasn't anyone heard of a 737-200/300/400.../900! They stretch commercial aircraft all the time with few changes to the structure and size of the wings (They do plan for this though, and so should have Nat and Burt ). As far as naming goes, sorry, it's a modified Cozy Mk IV, I'm not going to name it anything different! As for the front seat weight limit, I saw on a post in here Nat said that he just arbitrarily put that number in there because it seemed right to him. He probably wasn't far off, but I would venture to guess there's a fair amount of design margin built into that number... It all comes down to CG and structural limits... In the end, I am probably going to expand my plane, call it ugly if you want, but I'd rather be different than gospel Cozy builders (You certainly can't do too much differentiation on paint colors and schemes ) any day. I plan on incorporating Cozy Girrl Strakes in my design as well, that will likely have more lift implications than a fuse expansion even if they are behind the Canard... Is anyone I am talking to an Aerospace/Aerostructures Engineer? Keep em coming, I am enjoying this discussion, and all good points that merit a lot of thought! -Chris Z.