SAF_Zoom

Well I see it more as a way of improving the build process for builders to come. I know that going through all the data that is available out there and trying to incorporate it in the plans is a lot of work... It also has to be redone each time someone want to start a project. This effort would seriously cut down on the "pre building" phase for many. So I think that those that are willing to take the time to make this happen merite our thanks... nothing less...

Just a though, best practices could be indicated via suggested alternate approach/methods

I'm no lawyer but if one is to integrate the "free content" of the CP's into the original... then you have a sustantially new design... Is there a patent attorney in the bunch?

Thx Neilk, just wanted to know if it was possible to do.... just in case...

Ok I have just a few question before I can go the Cozy III route: - As the Ronzc canard been adapted to the Cozy III ? (I've not read trough all the Cozy's newsletters yet, as I'm reading all the CSA newsletters presently...) - How wide is a Cozy III fuselage with and without the main spar attached? As I indicated before, I have spotted a Cozy III in tub state for sale (with complete plans) near Laporte, Texas. I've sent an email to the seller (last Friday) and have not heard from him so far. Looks like I'll have to call him. Because I'm from Montreal Canada (2000 miles away from the spotted project)... I would really appriciate if a builder near it could look it over for me. I am willing to pay for your time and travel expenses. If the project is found to be in decent shape I would go there and pick it up over the course of the holidays. On a side note, if the main spar is attached to this Cozy III fus, is there a way to take it off and reinstall a new one... I ask this because in Canada, a spar would not be approved if it was not inspected prior to closing... and would need to be rebuilt.... Thanks,

For the GIB thing, they are comming out with a VGA output for that... so 3rd screen at a fraction of the price...

What I did when working at PWC, was wairing a pair of mechanic gloves under the latex one. They will absorbe some of the mosture from your hands. They should lessen the irritation... Don't know about working with epoxy, but a tight pair of mechanic glove (or if you want even tighter and thinner try the Dye paintball gloves) should help..

Hey guys, relax lets keep it fun... OK We are talking here about a plane that you fly and know the history of. A plane that as been built per plan (well mostly) and is well maintain. No history of abuse and always flow within its limits. That being said, I know the LE can do fun stuff... its no Spitfire MkIXe but still... From what I can gather, the Cozy III should also be in the same league as the LE. I've read through many of the early Cozy news letters at it seems pretty close to the LE in performance. Anybody have a set of plan for a Cozy III that I can look at ? Can one still buy one ?

Or "hold my beer..." Kidding aside, what the max G load of the Cozy III, I beleive (I'm not sure) the stock LE is +6-3 and the Cozy IV is +3.6-??? but what about the III

Rgr that... I don't want to fly over its structural limits... but I know LE are capable of light aerobatic... the Cozy III being essentially a wider LE may also be able too... I would not think of doing any of those thing in a Cozy IV or Velocity type aircraft...

A Split S can be made by cork screwing into the dive... you don't have to properly roll it inverted... then it all become a factor of positive G loading and vertical acceleration... Same thing with the Immelman... except that you are pulling a few negative G on top... We are not talking ACM where you go for the deck/stars here... BTW Phil... did you fly any of these birds are you only in the building stage?

Thanks guys, but when I say VERY light aerobatics it is more in terms of relitavely high G turnsa and Scissors. I may do a few Split S and Immelmans... but that is it... I don't plan of flying it inverted... Anybody here piloted both, the LE and Cozy III or IV and can give me a first hand account of how both planes behave.

Check out these guys: http://www.mglavionics.com/ They have many units available.

Thanks Steve, I've printed out all of the Cozy's news letters and will read them over the weekend. As for the Mark IV, it seems to be very large. And I may be mistaking but I assume the LE and Cozy III must be more nimble planes (better roll/climb rates). I know one can't suck and blow at the same time, but I would like a roomy plane with just a bit of zoom zoom zoom to hit. I'm really scraching my head right now. As I don't know anybody in my neck of the wood that could give me advice regarding wich would be a better plane. As stated before, I would like a relatively roomy planes that is fun to fly (read into this VERY basic aerobatic). It will also need to be confortable for long cross country flight (for 2 poeple)... Any one can give me the pros and cons of going: - Slightly wider LE (2-4 inches max) - Stock Cozy III aerodynamics, modified interior (2 tandem seating); - Stock Cozy IV aerodynamics, modified interior (1 front seat, 2 back seat) - Or all stock models The input from flyers/builders would be greatly appreciated. As I may need to act quickly if I want to buy the project that I've spotted.

Thanks but I don't want a side by side plane. I prefer being seated in the middle of the plane. But it is a nice plane.

Ok guys, here is the deal... I'm all set to start my build, Terf CD, all CSA newsletters, printed templates for the Open EZ, all required $$$ set aside, building table done, etc... BUT... Although I really like the Long EZ, the more I read about the LE the more I realize that the fit may be just a bit too tight. I'm 6'2" 240lbs with a 48" chest, my girlfriend is 5'8" and 140lbs with a chest ... so with us two on board not a lot a "room" for fuel and baggage if we don't want to be to much over gross... So my immediate reaction was let's make it wider... and lets fly over gross... but being an aircraft tech... I know that this is opening a big can of worms... Now that I know more about the other types of canard aircraft out there, my eye got caught by the Cozy's... The MIV is too large for me. And don't want nor need a 4 seater. So I though what about the Cozy III ? I know you guys will say, it’s has an even narrower in front seat… but my idea, would be to make it a large tandem two seater, kind of like an over size LE, instead of a 3 seater. I would arrange the interior like that of a FW-190 D-9 with large side flat horizontal instrument clusters (for fuel selector, gear actuator, electric trim switch, etc.). A Cozy would also allow for the twin 10” (diagonal) EFIS I would like to use… So I guess my questions for those of you that already built or are flying these canard aircraft are: - Is there a reason why they are so few Cozy III out there (I may be wrong here just my impression), or is it only due to the introduction of the MIV? - Does the plane suffer from any shortcoming? (I don't what to call it/them defect(s)) - If one is to build a Cozy III, what support can one expect (assuming one can find complete plans for it). Is there any where to buy prefab parts for it (Strakes, aluminum hardware (i.e.: control tubes etc.). etc.). I know nothing of the Cozy III other than it’s a derivative of the LE… I’m at the beginning of this road… - What are the flying caracteristic of the III compare to an LE (roll, climb, etc.)? Finally, how would we (see above) fit in such a plane? Does the GIB leg room (and side room) similar to that of a Long EZ? I don't have any problem with re-arranging thing inside of the cockpit. I'm more then qualify to keep it structurally sound and within specified weight limits... I just don't want to mess with the aerodynamics of it... And BTW the reason I'm asking about the Cozy is that I found one for sale in tub state with a complete set of plans...

Look around you'll be surprised... these poeple don't really advertise BTW...

And maintain it well... that includes preventive maintenance... you know changhing thing BEFORE they crap out on you... That is what is sadly lacking with many experimental aircraft.... Poeple maintain them as if they were cars... something breaks they replace it... And BTW since when the term "Experimental" was limited to canard type

We have 2 mandatory inspection, one is before inclosing a structure the other is before the first flight. So IRL could be more then 2 if the build is not planned correctly.

And what part of SELF regulation did you not understand... This is meant to do just the opposite... keep big brother at a distance... BTW the inspection process I decribve is what Canadian builders have to go through... Just a bit more detailed... But I'm Canadian... so my input of this subject ends here... Just food for though

Who the hell is percieving a canard problem??? Read the first series of posts (in this thread)... YOU guys want to improve the image of experimental. And how do you that.... read above... other then that leave it as is... and let the chip where they may...

How is it different from the A&P that signs off a repair or annual inspection? He just committed his civil and criminal liability. That is why it should not be free. One of the costs would be liability insurance. The association would be responsible for its staff, just like any corporation. Also the contract between the association and its member should clearly limit the former’s liability (if possible, I know you can do this in Canada, but in the US???) Or the other route is to bring this forward to the authorities, saying... hey we want to help make this sport as safe at it can be... we need help to achieve this... give us the means to do it. Let us self regulate. As long as your requirements are equal or greater than those of the governing authorities you will probably obtain this, if you go through a well know association. Then you can get to work, implementing rules that are adapted to your reality that can hopefully reduce the number of unsafe aircrafts out there. You know they are out there, just read all the post about how you have to be really careful when buying a used experimental aircraft. But this could really bit you in the a$%?& as you could create a second bid brother that all would need to adhere too…

Yep that is what they are... just getting you guys input.

Well I came up on this post by accident... researching threads answered by Marc My two cents are... If people building/flying experimental aircraft (and a mean ALL types) want the public/government to have a better view of experimental aircrafts you need to implement self regulation. Who is better equipped to regulate experimental/homebuilt aircraft then homebuilder/homebuilder associations themselves? I know you guys like your liberties, but don’t wait for big brother to take them away from you. One needs to be proactive, don't let anyone impose regulations, implement them before they do. Make them so that they are adapted to your reality. I'm now an accountant (Certified Management Accountant), but I studied and worked as an aircraft mechanic/engineer (college degree in aeronautics for US folks). I know that my present professional association is self regulating, and respected for it. Members are held to a high standard of ethics and professional proficiency. It has many benefits as most of you can probably appreciate. My idea would mean the introduction a strict inspection regime that ALL experimental/homebuilt aircraft needs to follow to be part of the ASSOCIATION (i.e.: EAA per example). No more one shot inspection at the end of the build or voluntary inspection during the build. This should include pre-cover up inspection (to inspect the internal of your planes), controls, electrical, instruments and communication system check, fuel and engine system review. Also a comprehensive inspection schedule of key systems should be mandatory, with log book (should be based of system type, i.e.: Lycoming 320 etc...). Also builders/owners should have to retain copies of all invoices that attest of work done on the aircraft for audit purposes. Your regulations should exceed and supersede those of the FAA. If they are not followed, membership should be revoke… period. Also, make the use of aircraft grade components (or suitable substitutes) mandatory in critical systems, etc. You could even have mandatory flight training to make sure everybody is up to speed (could be just a couple of hours per year, and could include various subjects and or actual flying). So when somebody tells that experimental/homebuilt aircraft are inherently unsafe, you have something concrete to throw back at them that can be backed up with actual hard data. I know that build specs vary widely and such a program would be tedious. But it could be done by approved experienced builders/operators. One would only have to break it done is various systems and aircraft class; Composite structure; Steel/aluminum structure; Wood & fabric structure; Control system; Electrical, Instrument and Communication; Fuel and hydraulic systems; Propeller and Engines; Etc… I may be a bit to corporate for some, but that is the only thing IMHO that will achieve the desired goal, which is altering PERCEPTION. I know that I have not been around a lot of homebuilt planes, mostly certified ones, but what I have seen of some homebuilt scared the living s%?$% out of me. I know that people that post here are not those that are "problematic" but they are out there and responsible builders need a way to flush them out... self regulation would do just that... Sure some would not comply/join but that would be their decision and their loss. Eventually your organisation/association would end up with a very good safety record that will probably show the benefit of participating in such a program (this could even result in additional insurance cost savings for your members). Making it safer will have many advantages. For one, less mechanically incline individual will feel more confident about their plane knowing that a qualified individual as looked things over and your planes would have a better resale value for when or if you want to upgrade, etc… But this would come as a cost. Inspection should come at an expense. Effort should be made to keep them at a minimum. Just like we accountant have to pay a fee to write our entrance examination, builder should have to do so to enter the association (qualify their build). After that a yearly membership fee should be paid (should be a couple hundreds dollars). Also a serious effort should be made by the association to identify the cause of all or most experimental/homebuilt aircraft crashes. The findings should be reported in an unbiased way and openly commutated to insure transparency. Members should also have to notify their association of ALL incidents involving their plane (i.e.: prop strikes, loss of power, etc) that occur after the testing phase (we don’t want them to be swamp by reports). This would most certainly give a couple of jobs to some of you, could be a nice way to supplement a retirement income for some (some full time, some part time work). Finally, I know I'm not from the state, but serious attention to the legal implication of such an idea should be examined. I think everyone want the best for this hobby, without loosing everything they have in trying to improve thing.

I have no intention of flying in thunderstorm... I don't have a death wish. But I was just looking at the system that have metal inserted (inbeded?) in the fibers to conduct electicity. If the cost was reasonable I don't know why one would not won't to have such a protection. Not that one would intentionaly but himself at risk but... What about the reduce sans/fill/sand cycle claim of some of these surface films? Could their be any benefit there ?