ErlendM

As promised – here is the January canard desktop calendar – enjoy! And thanks a lot for the many beautiful pictures I have got so far. I’m still looking for new pictures, if you have pictures to share, please send them over to me. I need as large resolution as possible. My bandwith is no problem, so don’t be afraid to send over large images! I wish you all a happy new year, and safe flying (and building!)! Here is the link: http://cozy.ljosnes.no/calendar.html

Lynn, what stuff are you talking about here? Do you have any product-name to share?

Ah.... I see. That makes sense. Off it goes Thanks!

I just passed the stupidity-test and did the same thing - i.e. mounting the aft landing-gear bulkhead with the plies facing backwards. Just curious to know - before I hack them loose again - why does it matter what side the 8 plies are?

Inspired by "The Big Book of Canards" and the calendar-wallpapers found on EAA's homepage, I thought it would be fun to have a similar wallpaper-calendar for 2010 with only canards! I can make and host these wallpapers - for free of course - but I need some GOOD canard-pictures - with good resolution. If you are willing to share your best pictures with the rest of us, please send them in email to my address: erlend@ljosnes.no. Please attach as much information as possible about the aircraft. I will publish the address of the wallpapers when January 2010 is ready!

I've studied the answers I got regarding this matter and there is no conflict with the position of the lift-tabs when the F22 is 33.7" wide. I have not found WHY the two drawings differ, but based on the answers I got there are several builders that have built the F22 based on the large drawings, hence got the most narrow version of F22 (33.7") instead of the 34.7" wide version from the original M-drawings.

I am currently on chapter 6, trimming the bulkheads to fit the fuselage sides. While struggling to test-fit the F22 I went back to look at the drawings again. I then discovered that there is a big difference between the width of F22 on the original M-drawing compared to the big full-size-drawings I bought from ACS. When I line up the drawings according to the center-line, the original M-drawing of F22 is 11 mm (0.43”) WIDER than the full-size-drawing. My F22 is made according to the full-size drawing and is 86cm wide (33.86”) while it should be 88.2 cm (34.72”) according to the original M-drawing. Does anyone know what drawing that is correct? I haven’t found any place where the width of F22 is written. I have checked the IP and those drawings match 100%.

I have been reading about these click-bonds but haven't seen one "live" so I do not fully understand how they work compared to traditional bolts. Even after looking at the cartoon on the Girrrls website I still don't get it. Does anyone have a "picture-tutorial" or any other description for noobs like my self? Where will I use bolts and where would I use click-bonds, and why? Thanks in advance...

I'm going to need these in a while, so if you don't get a trade, I can buy them.

And where might that be?

Welcome, Ronny! I'm in the same situation, I'm hopefully having my solo-check tomorrow actually. And in my garage I am building a Cozy. I can't tell how difficult the transition from C172 to an EZ will be, for me it's many years still until I can sit in my own EZ so hopefully I will log many hours before I change to the Cozy.

I like this approach and will most certainly do the same when my plane is ready. I just wonder - why use fuel here, will using water instead give any problem? I realize I have to get rid of the water completely, but that should not be too hard.

Well - my plan was to cut a piece of 2" x 2" of each foam and weigh them down with the same weight and then see how much weight it takes until I can actually measure the compression. My foam is rated at 300kN/m2 = 43.5 PSI. I need quite some weight since my test-area is 4 sq. inch, but I have access to a lot of lead, so I will make some blocks that I later can use as ballast in my Cozy :-) It would of course be a lot easier if I was able to get the figures from Aircraft Spruce, but that seems to be very difficult.

I am going to perform tests myself with the plans foam and my local foam. Will test both peel-strength and compression. I have already tested that the plans foam are much more brittle and will break off / snap with less pressure than my local foam. If I press with a finger on the plans foam the cells will chrush leaving a big indentation while the same pressure on my local foam will result in a much smaller indentation as the cells will decompress slightly when the pressure is gone. What I need to know is the compressive-strength on the plans foam. This value is not mentioned anywhere as far as I have managed to search. I have found tech-specs of the Dow Styrofoam FB - but this is the small-cell foam as far as I know. Does anyone have the brand-name of the large-cell-foam? Or even better - does anyone know the values of the compressive-strength? My local foam - with the same density as the plans foam (2lbs/cu.feet) has a compressive-strength at 300kN/m2 (43.5 PSI). Styrofoam FB has a compressive-strength at 200kN/m2 (29 PSI) at the same density.

I've been talking to Chris in South Africa. He will send me a sample so I can compare with the foam I already have. I guess that with their 540-machines it has to be good enough? I am also going to talk to the local EAA to see what they feel. Not many EZ's have been built in Norway, so it's rather easy to track the builders down and ask them as well. The saga continues...

Thanks, guys. I've been looking at various solutions on the turtleback but I haven't come so far that I have given it much thought. I have more or less decided to go the FHC-route, I have an E-racer "nearby", and I will study how he have done the hinges.

Ok, I see. I thought the Cosy Classic was the predecessor for the MK IV. My mistake. What is the difference between the Cozy III and the Cosy Classic then? I guess the Cozy III also has the side-opening?

I just bought the plans for the FHC for the Cosy Classic from Ulrich Wolter in Germany. It consists of the entire chapter 18 for the CC. I plan to extract the essentials from this and adapt the MKIV-plans with the changes needed to make the FHC. Reading the plans made me wonder: Does anyone know why Nat changed from FHC in the Classic to the side-opening in the MK IV?

I'm still looking for alternative sources for the wing-foam and discovered something interesting today. I have a friend that builds an Europa (http://www.europa-aircraft.co.uk/). I asked him to send me a sample of the foam his wings are buildt of. It turns out that this styrofoam is not the "large-cell"-type that are used in the Cozy/Long-EZ but the small-cell. I bought samples of the small-cell and the large-cell from AircraftSpruce to compare, and it's no doubt about the type beeing small-cell. The question is then: If small-cell is used in the Europa - would it be safe to use it in a Cozy? Here is a link I found to a site where they build the wings: http://www.loginet.nl/europa/eurowing.htm

I just got an email from Larry Hill: I have been flying this combination for a little over 4 years now and it took the first 3 years to work out several problems (mainly oil cooling). I was confident enough to fly to Oshkosh last year( 8 hours) and after some minor improvements to the oil system over the winter I felt I had resolved all of the problems. I am very happy with the results. It is a very quiet and smooth running engine and the performance is quite similar to that of a O-360. It performed flawlessly on the trip to Oshkosh this year so it looks like I only have to worry about routine maintenance from now on. Marc's comments likely stem from my statement at the Cozy dinner that if one wants to fly they should install a Lyc. This just reflects my position that one must plan on doing a lot of extra work for a prototype installation. In fact, although it added considerably to the time tinkering and fine tuning( roughly 3 years), I enjoyed the experience and would recommend the engine to anyone who is willing to take on the extra work. Looks like the engine itself is ok, and hopefully Larry's effort would make it easier for the next guy who are willing to try this engine.

Time to open this thread again. It's been 5 years since this engine was mentioned, does anyone have any experience still? I haven't been able to find anything negative about this engine when I was googling, would be interesting to hear if anyone knows more about this one.

As a fresh composite builder working on the tub I must say that starting on complex things as the canard, wings etc. would be a bad idea. I was tempted to buy a finished tub but even though I would save some hours I would miss the most important part - the education process that goes into the building. I can afford to screw up some bulkheads and remake them, that is a part of the learning. I would not ever start directly on the canard or wings, without any experience. In my opinion, the way the plans guides me through the building process, it makes me more and more confident in my scills, as I can see that the parts get better and better. "You have to learn to crawl before you can walk".

I've just got the gauges (with lights). Could anyone please explain what the next steps should be? I understand I have to carve a depression, but how deep and how long? Am I going to install the gauges now (in chapter 5) or wait until later? I'm obviously a bit confused here. I've tried to look in the archives as well as looking on other builders sites, but I can't find any details of this installation. Thanks...

From Mistral's homepage: Temporary slowdown of operations at MISTRAL Engines Press Release, 17 July 2009 Impacted by the current economic situation MISTRAL Engines has no other option than to temporarily slowdown its activities and to reduce its workforce. The certification process of its 300 hp lead engine, however, continues, and the company expects to resume full blown activities within six to nine months. Earlier this year MISTRAL Engines launched a new round of capital increase in order to bring MISTRAL from a startup to a fully industrialized global company *. Although key potential investors have clearly demonstrated their interest to participate in this financing round, convinced about the potential of MISTRAL Engines’ products and growth, the process is clearly impacted by the economic crisis. Investors are thus expected to join Mistral Engines’ capital, but at a slower pace than initially anticipated. http://www.mistral-engines.com/content/view/full/184/item/763/offset/0 Doesn't sound very promising, unfortunately. About pricing, I asked them in april and got these prices: Our list prices, terms and conditions are as follows: (1) For the experimental version of the G200: US$ 48’000 (VAT excluded). (2) For the experimental version of the G300 : US$ 69’000 (VAT excluded).

I see. That explains why some has enough room and others don't. But shouldn't the paragraph be moved from chapter 5 to chapter 6 in the FAQ? Would it be a stupid thing to postpone F28 until chapter 12? I will probably buy cores from Eureka, so I can't tell how these will fit. Thanks for clarifying this!