I believe the original post was about adding an constant speed MT.. <It's good to have real world input.> Allow me to add some "real world" input. For the past few years RAFE has been flying a Speed

Mark Ewart wrote: Yep. Scarf on an extra 3" between the constant chord section and the shaped tip. Chapter 10, Page 1, Figure 1 - you can see that Nat changed the original 11" outboard section to 8"

John & Marc, Thank you for your wisdom. It's good to have real world input. Marc, ...leave your canard with the larger, original span... ...as well as moving your CG RANGE forward by 1.5"

All, Sorry I didn't get to this sooner but just got back from a week La La land in Calif....and am now going thru the emails. SO... Only #1 is acceptable as Marc

John & Marc, Thank you for your wisdom.  It's good to have real world input. Marc,     ...leave your canard with the larger, original span...     ...as well as moving your CG RANGE forward

Mark Ewart wrote: So all of your logic is sound - wanting more weight aft to balance the two larger folks in the front seat is ONE method for achieving your goal. However, as John Basol points out,

Mark, As someone who has a CS prop on a Cozy, I can tell you without any hesitation it is simply NOT worth the expense, both in upfront cost as well as maintenance. The plans built, 180hp, fixed

Marc, Thank you for your reply. To fill in the blanks: Nose gear leg left full length (to address deck angle) and assembly moved forward as dictated to maintain plans FS position of nose

Mark Ewart wrote: Why? It will depend on your particular installation - some folks have (IMO, with poor judgement) cut their main gear legs shorter to increase deck angle on the ground, while some

Looking into an MT C/S prop for my project. What is the real world (hard landing gear flex) maximum diameter prop that can be used on a Cozy MKIV? Thanks, Mark Ewart Plans #1341

Hi Rick, If there’s room, put me down for 2. Thanks for doing this Daryl and Kim Lueck

Please cancel my reservation, Rick Curt Smith -- Curt SmithSent from Gmail Mobile

All: I have 21 registered, will accept 1 or 2 more then I'll stop answering requests from this mailing list. This was the only venue I used to get the word out. Believe it or not, I

Put me down for 1 please.

I agree Ken, I was very disappointed with the quality and completeness of the NTSB reports. I actually sent a letter to my state Senator on two occasions requesting an increase the NTSB's budget and

Hi Izzy- Just FYI - I wouldn't get to worked up re using that data. I'm line 28. It WAS a roll over - not listed as such. Listed as 'substantial damage'. I guess that's subjective,

I have not heard the talk, but the stand alone statement that the safety record of "orphaned designs:" was not good, does not necessarily say anything about the safety record of the Rutan canards.

Correction, "there are 27 accident Event ID's that report the aircraft ended up inverted, suggesting an 8.5% probability the aircraft will come to rest inverted. " Should read "there are 27 accident

Attached is an analysis I performed on the NTSB Database in 2011. The reason I did this was to try to determine how often a canard could roll over during an accident with an eye towards justifying the

Put me down for 5. Ken Swain