WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER FLY? HMMM......................
SO, JUST WHAT IS ALL THIS HOOPLA...you may ask? A couple years ago I tried to write it down...so I'll put it down now here. I named it "a better way to bullet" as a play on one of my favorite bands songs by U2.
Here's a synopsis of all that is written below, in case you just want to cut-to-the-chase and avoid my long windedness.
1. I want to get somewhere for trips, faster than a typical owned or rented General Aviation airplane.
2. I want a good looking plane that doesn't look slow while sitting on the ground, made of space age materials, using compound curves. I very much like the curves of curvy curves. Composite structures technology lends that compound-curve form-ability to aerodynamic superiority.
3. I want something new, not 20-40 years old to fly in.
4. I want the satisfaction of having built an airplane, and others asking where they can buy something as cool as this, and being able to say..."I, and my friends built it, and you can also. It's difficult to buy something as cool as this, you have to build it yourself".
So that sums the below up. If you want more, read on below...
BULLET THE BLUE SKY
A Better Way To Bullet
First of all I am writing this as I am finishing up the Fuselage and after having spent the last two and a half years building my plane. I have been reluctant to have a website and spend any effort at it. So, I wanted to build and actually learn something, and have that big 3 dimensional aircraft shaped object take shape in my garage...and then I felt I could actually warrant calling myself a "builder", and have some degree of credibility in the Canard Experimental community. Time and building has taught me..the further I go, the more there is to learn. I have had my share of life-setbacks which have affected my focus on building. One thing that has been fantastic, has been my wife's past support for this dream. This is a BIG 3000+ hour effort. I don't blame many for becoming discouraged, but if you want a really fast 4 place composite airplane, that's the effort/hours its going to take. More on this later.
So.......Why a better bullet? No the isn't about ballistics and sunny days . It is about attempting to travel as FAST as a bullet!...or at least leaving the sluggishness of land travel far behind, and opening up travel opportunities, adventure and the visiting of ones distant family and friends. Enjoying the flying, but getting there relatively quick. No TSA lines and shoes off, shoes on, I can't take my toothpaste and my wife can't take her nail-file. With a personal aircraft, everything is just the opposite and one can go on a trip as you please...and carry what you want. We dont have to watch a grandma get wanded as a potential terrorist while a shifty eyed 'profile' guy in line passes through security because...oh well, you've seen it...I want to avoid it.
Caveat.
I don't intend to offend those who fly standard 110knot GA airplanes with the following. If you fly the Archer's and 172's etc, it is understandable because that is what is available to fly. What follows is just my past views and how I looked at airplanes. I always wanted to be able to fly, to go places. The traveling bug is the reason for wanting to FLY, and fly pretty fast. With that, I just never thought that flying along in a Cessna 172 was much better than driving. That and they look clunky. Get a good headwind and you're only traveling a little faster than the fast lane on an interstate highway. Again, not trying to offend the guys who rent 152's '72's and '82's from the local FBO rental fleet but...nope, not bullet-like. Bullet-like for general aviation aircraft is pretty lame, typically requiring a large fuel consuming engine and hindered by a blocky airframe designed in the 1950's. Funny how sleek some of the designs were for land vehicles back then...but GA designs were clunky. [Unless you went Jet. Enter stage right, Bill ''Learjet" Lear! Oh yea!- but this is about propeller craft]. Since that time I have grown to appreciate barnstormer and slower vintage type machines, but masquerading 120mph airplanes as 'fast' means of travel by the manufacturers, still doesn't cut it for time compressing cross country travel as I see it. Say, From Monterey, Calif to Salt Lake City Eastbound in under 3 hours....vs. 14 in a car! Or San Francisco to San Diego in 2 hours. Monterey, Calif to Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 3.5 hours. That kind of airplane is a time machine! But that kind of performance airplane from a Manufacturer will cost 400 Grand! And a 200kt (230mph) Cruise capable aircraft will set you back at least 500 grand, depending on your avionics! NOT SO WITH A slightly modified or more modified COZY!!! I can't see a pleasure vehicle costing a guy 500k, when you can build it yourself for a fraction of that..and better, as well. 500k for a business machine that can be depreciated, rational. But not for a personal vehicle. Anyway, that's how see it.
SEE SCOTT CARTERS yellow and white IO540 COZYxtra "TIME MACHINE" PICTURED BELOW!!!!!!!
1. I want to get somewhere for trips, faster than a typical owned or rented General Aviation airplane.
2. I want a good looking plane that doesn't look slow while sitting on the ground, made of space age materials, using compound curves. I very much like the curves of curvy curves. Composite structures technology lends that compound-curve form-ability to aerodynamic superiority.
3. I want something new, not 20-40 years old to fly in.
4. I want the satisfaction of having built an airplane, and others asking where they can buy something as cool as this, and being able to say..."I, and my friends built it, and you can also. It's difficult to buy something as cool as this, you have to build it yourself".
So that sums the below up. If you want more, read on below...
BULLET THE BLUE SKY
A Better Way To Bullet
First of all I am writing this as I am finishing up the Fuselage and after having spent the last two and a half years building my plane. I have been reluctant to have a website and spend any effort at it. So, I wanted to build and actually learn something, and have that big 3 dimensional aircraft shaped object take shape in my garage...and then I felt I could actually warrant calling myself a "builder", and have some degree of credibility in the Canard Experimental community. Time and building has taught me..the further I go, the more there is to learn. I have had my share of life-setbacks which have affected my focus on building. One thing that has been fantastic, has been my wife's past support for this dream. This is a BIG 3000+ hour effort. I don't blame many for becoming discouraged, but if you want a really fast 4 place composite airplane, that's the effort/hours its going to take. More on this later.
So.......Why a better bullet? No the isn't about ballistics and sunny days . It is about attempting to travel as FAST as a bullet!...or at least leaving the sluggishness of land travel far behind, and opening up travel opportunities, adventure and the visiting of ones distant family and friends. Enjoying the flying, but getting there relatively quick. No TSA lines and shoes off, shoes on, I can't take my toothpaste and my wife can't take her nail-file. With a personal aircraft, everything is just the opposite and one can go on a trip as you please...and carry what you want. We dont have to watch a grandma get wanded as a potential terrorist while a shifty eyed 'profile' guy in line passes through security because...oh well, you've seen it...I want to avoid it.
Caveat.
I don't intend to offend those who fly standard 110knot GA airplanes with the following. If you fly the Archer's and 172's etc, it is understandable because that is what is available to fly. What follows is just my past views and how I looked at airplanes. I always wanted to be able to fly, to go places. The traveling bug is the reason for wanting to FLY, and fly pretty fast. With that, I just never thought that flying along in a Cessna 172 was much better than driving. That and they look clunky. Get a good headwind and you're only traveling a little faster than the fast lane on an interstate highway. Again, not trying to offend the guys who rent 152's '72's and '82's from the local FBO rental fleet but...nope, not bullet-like. Bullet-like for general aviation aircraft is pretty lame, typically requiring a large fuel consuming engine and hindered by a blocky airframe designed in the 1950's. Funny how sleek some of the designs were for land vehicles back then...but GA designs were clunky. [Unless you went Jet. Enter stage right, Bill ''Learjet" Lear! Oh yea!- but this is about propeller craft]. Since that time I have grown to appreciate barnstormer and slower vintage type machines, but masquerading 120mph airplanes as 'fast' means of travel by the manufacturers, still doesn't cut it for time compressing cross country travel as I see it. Say, From Monterey, Calif to Salt Lake City Eastbound in under 3 hours....vs. 14 in a car! Or San Francisco to San Diego in 2 hours. Monterey, Calif to Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 3.5 hours. That kind of airplane is a time machine! But that kind of performance airplane from a Manufacturer will cost 400 Grand! And a 200kt (230mph) Cruise capable aircraft will set you back at least 500 grand, depending on your avionics! NOT SO WITH A slightly modified or more modified COZY!!! I can't see a pleasure vehicle costing a guy 500k, when you can build it yourself for a fraction of that..and better, as well. 500k for a business machine that can be depreciated, rational. But not for a personal vehicle. Anyway, that's how see it.
SEE SCOTT CARTERS yellow and white IO540 COZYxtra "TIME MACHINE" PICTURED BELOW!!!!!!!
The substantial cost of bringing a new certificated aircraft to market and the relativly limited marketplace that minor GA occupies, pretty much dictated/dictates that if you are interested in flying..you get to fly your fathers old car. Hey, I love my Dad, but that old Opel he drove looks-wise, just gave me the willies. To top it off, it went about 55mph on a good day, maybe 65 downhill out on the interstate, and that's kind of about how I view a Cessna 152. Back in my Senior HS year, my Dad offered me flight lessons and I took a ride [in a 152] and LOVED the flying experience, but I couldn't see how I would stay proficient at the relative high cost of renting one of these little tin cans, [I can own mine and it will cost about 80.00hr wet vs. 125.00 to rent a 172] and frankly, all my swoopy dreams of wanting to emulate a jet pilot were far away as I putt-putted about in the stumpy flying guppy. In retrospect, how could you blame me, I was dreaming of Porsche like aircraft performance, and flying in the Opel....with no Porsche's even available to the average guys GA world. The nicest single prop plane out there was an expensive Mooney...and although a little more aerodynamic it was still 'aerody-nemic'....I mean, come ON people. Where were the planes that looked fasssst on the ground, and WERE FASSST in the air?
Oh yea, Fassst looking parked on the ramp, and fassst flying- that's when you went to a twin-engine aircraft, and the Beech DUKE caught your eye. That was the ONLY plane that looked fast on the ground..and then they muffed up the engine choice and put in those lackluster engines that didn't make it go that fast anyway, and never got near TBO noway, nohow. Which brings me to my last point. Doesn't one find it odd, that with all the anxiety the American public went through regarding the automotive industry in the late 60's and 70's, and how we lost that whole marketplace to the Asian higher quality performance, fit and finish production, that today's pilot sorts though want ads for single engine Cessnas and Pipers of that era, and proudly waves the paper over his head whilst doing an 'end-zone' dance when he finds a 'nice' 1976 C182 for sale for 50grand!!! Whooo-Hoooo! Yow. If nobody really wanted a basic transportation type American car from that era,why would you get all worked up about going back and buying a similar plane from that era? I know, the rationale is, it's just because that is what is available. Well, that just doesn't spin my proverbial propeller.
Onward. So by now,(if you have been looking on the web) you've heard about the history of the Cozy Mark IV from other peoples websites, and since I'm not big on duplication of effort...if you haven't, go and get it...because its a good read.
Back 30 years ago, I wish I could have known about the Long Eze, but I gave up on pursuing a pilot license just "minutes''before they came on the scene. It wasn't until 25+ years later that I looked on the web to show my 19 year old son a "Futuristic-Star-Wars" looking Long Eze [hoping now to duplicate my fathers old efforts, and interest my son in flying lessons] that low and behold, Nat Puffers Cozy MarkIV came into view! Wowszda! The picture was of them flying straight at the camera, slightly off angle, and in a side-by-side semi-reclining seating arrangement!! GREAT! The pictures that followed showed me a sleek craft that was not my fathers Opel! Near-Stock 200hp configured it did better than 200mph and was economical on fuel, and it looked futuristic! In my mind the puzzle was complete. Five to seven years to build your own sky rocket for 4 people and full fuel with a 1000mile range at 175knots(200mph)!...for 55-65 grand...I'll make it work somehow!!! Then, later, I decided on creating an even faster Cozy.
Oh yea, Fassst looking parked on the ramp, and fassst flying- that's when you went to a twin-engine aircraft, and the Beech DUKE caught your eye. That was the ONLY plane that looked fast on the ground..and then they muffed up the engine choice and put in those lackluster engines that didn't make it go that fast anyway, and never got near TBO noway, nohow. Which brings me to my last point. Doesn't one find it odd, that with all the anxiety the American public went through regarding the automotive industry in the late 60's and 70's, and how we lost that whole marketplace to the Asian higher quality performance, fit and finish production, that today's pilot sorts though want ads for single engine Cessnas and Pipers of that era, and proudly waves the paper over his head whilst doing an 'end-zone' dance when he finds a 'nice' 1976 C182 for sale for 50grand!!! Whooo-Hoooo! Yow. If nobody really wanted a basic transportation type American car from that era,why would you get all worked up about going back and buying a similar plane from that era? I know, the rationale is, it's just because that is what is available. Well, that just doesn't spin my proverbial propeller.
Onward. So by now,(if you have been looking on the web) you've heard about the history of the Cozy Mark IV from other peoples websites, and since I'm not big on duplication of effort...if you haven't, go and get it...because its a good read.
Back 30 years ago, I wish I could have known about the Long Eze, but I gave up on pursuing a pilot license just "minutes''before they came on the scene. It wasn't until 25+ years later that I looked on the web to show my 19 year old son a "Futuristic-Star-Wars" looking Long Eze [hoping now to duplicate my fathers old efforts, and interest my son in flying lessons] that low and behold, Nat Puffers Cozy MarkIV came into view! Wowszda! The picture was of them flying straight at the camera, slightly off angle, and in a side-by-side semi-reclining seating arrangement!! GREAT! The pictures that followed showed me a sleek craft that was not my fathers Opel! Near-Stock 200hp configured it did better than 200mph and was economical on fuel, and it looked futuristic! In my mind the puzzle was complete. Five to seven years to build your own sky rocket for 4 people and full fuel with a 1000mile range at 175knots(200mph)!...for 55-65 grand...I'll make it work somehow!!! Then, later, I decided on creating an even faster Cozy.
Nat and Shirley, in their original promo picture, that got me hook, line and sinker!
It was about 3 weeks later that I got plans set #1055. I ordered Chapters 4-7 about a week later. That was in April of 2005. Midway through building my bulkheads I went to a fly-In in Columbia Calif of Canardians, and there was a fellow there (Tim 'Wizard' Sullivan)who had developed an allergic reaction to epoxy (while building a Mark IV in the '90's) and ended up buying a beautiful Long Eze and shelving his partially completed fuselage tub in his hanger rafters. He said it was just gathering dust for several years up there and maybe somebody would want it. Some of the guys told me this was a way to shave some big time off the project so I said I'd look at it and I drove my big truck several hours the next weekend to Northern Calif to look at it and maybe pick it up. Tim said that Nat had been his EAA counselor down in Arizona while he was doing the work. While there was a lot of good to what he had done, the gear bulkheads were placed too close together and needed to be completely redone and a couple other things were lacking. Still, it was a great jump, and even though it took me a few months to figure out what to do with those bulkheads [thanks Marc & Jay] and then more to implement it, I really am glad that 'Wizards' building efforts will actually meet the sky someday. So that's what this is about, building a better bullet...to Bullet the Blue Sky!
In the effort to better the bullet, I will be installing a 6 cylinder 260hp 540 cubic inch fuel injected Lycoming aircraft engine that will hopefully propel my bird to the 240mph cruise range of performance. It would cruise as fast, possibly similar to Chris E's and Scott Carter's, if I had retracts. So by porting and hand polishing the intakes Lycon says I will get 280+hp from my engine, and with well faired gear, faired hoop and blended winglets- should top out full throttle at about 265 mph and hopefully make the 240mph cruise performance due to these changes Chris and Scott plane do not have. The wings and wing spars are built to the Eracer specifications (they are Cozy wings to start, but with structural changes) which are 290+ mph proven wings. (Noted is the fact that my friend Jack Morrison and I took my wings and built his tested blended winglets design to them- Summer of '09...thanks Jack!) The 540 has been done on a few Cozys, most notably Chris's and Scotts airplanes, but mine will have the fixed main gear. I just don't want to sacrifice the rear two seats to allow the installation of the fuselage mounted retractable gear.
There's a lot to the building of these Cozys, and many new to the plans built type of building begin going on about all the changes that they want to do to "their Build". They call them "mods", and they range from widening the fuselage to retractable gear to electric this and that...to bigger canopies and changed cooling scoops and even automobile engines. I can say I have done several changes to my plane from plans, but anything I have conceived and ultimately done has been looked over by professionals in the industry and I have developed a personal comfort level as to performance or the minimal change of the original planes marvelous performance. That said, I do not recommend anyone do anything that I have done...just because you see it here or on a visit to see my Cozy...it doesn't mean it is approved or guaranteed by myself or anyone else for anothers use. That is the nature of Experimental aircraft. The original Cozy Mark IV has an excellent safety record and wonderful performance, and anything you change from that original set of plans during your building process, may have less than admirable results, perhaps even catastrophic. So it should be noted that this website has no affiliation with any other Cozy website, or the Cozy Development Corp or any other canard group or mailing list. This is my own little corner of OZ, and I am doing my own thing, and am happy with it. Don't copy anything you see here, as I have ditched the balloon and I am just trying to build something to go faster than those dang flying monkeys.
It may work, and then again....it ......may land me right back in...Oz, flat on my arze.
See the REST of the Story in the pictures and slight verbiage. There are a few ideas that I think have merit that I have put here...and if it inspires you to start building your own airplane, or amuse you at my perceived ridiculousness, I have achieved some of my goals! If you say to yourself, "Blimey, if this regular guy can do it, I can do it"...all the better. One thing is reality, we are not getting any younger. If you always had flight in the back of your mind and don't want to wake up at 70 with regrets because you never reached out for the brass ring. Reach out. Fellow featherless friends unite! Better yet, don't just fly a rental airplane...build your own aircraft! It's gonna be a rush of adrenaline to actually fly the aircraft that I built mostly in my garage that most all the neighbors scoffed about! You'd swear sometimes I was like Noah, but with an airplane not an Ark! Day by day, as I build, I get closer to cutting up some sky, - and maybe so should you!
Again, please note again that none of this is endorsed by Cozy Development Inc, any of the builders, or myself, or suggested for personal or public use, or is intended for use in anyones aircraft or project. While Experimental aircraft are, well, experimental, typically the Cozy community would appreciate it if you stuck with the plans design, as it was thoroughly tested and can be relied upon. In fact it has one of the best safety records out there. Any deviation from plans is solely the builders own experimental responsibility.
In the effort to better the bullet, I will be installing a 6 cylinder 260hp 540 cubic inch fuel injected Lycoming aircraft engine that will hopefully propel my bird to the 240mph cruise range of performance. It would cruise as fast, possibly similar to Chris E's and Scott Carter's, if I had retracts. So by porting and hand polishing the intakes Lycon says I will get 280+hp from my engine, and with well faired gear, faired hoop and blended winglets- should top out full throttle at about 265 mph and hopefully make the 240mph cruise performance due to these changes Chris and Scott plane do not have. The wings and wing spars are built to the Eracer specifications (they are Cozy wings to start, but with structural changes) which are 290+ mph proven wings. (Noted is the fact that my friend Jack Morrison and I took my wings and built his tested blended winglets design to them- Summer of '09...thanks Jack!) The 540 has been done on a few Cozys, most notably Chris's and Scotts airplanes, but mine will have the fixed main gear. I just don't want to sacrifice the rear two seats to allow the installation of the fuselage mounted retractable gear.
There's a lot to the building of these Cozys, and many new to the plans built type of building begin going on about all the changes that they want to do to "their Build". They call them "mods", and they range from widening the fuselage to retractable gear to electric this and that...to bigger canopies and changed cooling scoops and even automobile engines. I can say I have done several changes to my plane from plans, but anything I have conceived and ultimately done has been looked over by professionals in the industry and I have developed a personal comfort level as to performance or the minimal change of the original planes marvelous performance. That said, I do not recommend anyone do anything that I have done...just because you see it here or on a visit to see my Cozy...it doesn't mean it is approved or guaranteed by myself or anyone else for anothers use. That is the nature of Experimental aircraft. The original Cozy Mark IV has an excellent safety record and wonderful performance, and anything you change from that original set of plans during your building process, may have less than admirable results, perhaps even catastrophic. So it should be noted that this website has no affiliation with any other Cozy website, or the Cozy Development Corp or any other canard group or mailing list. This is my own little corner of OZ, and I am doing my own thing, and am happy with it. Don't copy anything you see here, as I have ditched the balloon and I am just trying to build something to go faster than those dang flying monkeys.
It may work, and then again....it ......may land me right back in...Oz, flat on my arze.
See the REST of the Story in the pictures and slight verbiage. There are a few ideas that I think have merit that I have put here...and if it inspires you to start building your own airplane, or amuse you at my perceived ridiculousness, I have achieved some of my goals! If you say to yourself, "Blimey, if this regular guy can do it, I can do it"...all the better. One thing is reality, we are not getting any younger. If you always had flight in the back of your mind and don't want to wake up at 70 with regrets because you never reached out for the brass ring. Reach out. Fellow featherless friends unite! Better yet, don't just fly a rental airplane...build your own aircraft! It's gonna be a rush of adrenaline to actually fly the aircraft that I built mostly in my garage that most all the neighbors scoffed about! You'd swear sometimes I was like Noah, but with an airplane not an Ark! Day by day, as I build, I get closer to cutting up some sky, - and maybe so should you!
Again, please note again that none of this is endorsed by Cozy Development Inc, any of the builders, or myself, or suggested for personal or public use, or is intended for use in anyones aircraft or project. While Experimental aircraft are, well, experimental, typically the Cozy community would appreciate it if you stuck with the plans design, as it was thoroughly tested and can be relied upon. In fact it has one of the best safety records out there. Any deviation from plans is solely the builders own experimental responsibility.