That's pretty cool! I don't know anything about planes, but the fact that you built it from parts is impressive. Having that intimate knowledge of the machine must be rewarding in a way that's not possible with factory-built aircraft. Congratulations!
If you're thinking about building one, start the process in your 20's. It takes a longgg time. And hope the heck you don't develop epoxy allergies in the process. Reserve your hangar space when you start building. Sweet cross country plane.
Vortex generators increase the minimum drag and decrease the maximum lift-to-drag ratio. They can help in slow flight as in takeoff and landing, BUT they will reduce cruise speed, nothing is free. Other than that, this is a beautiful speciment of a plane.
Good points, but a bit off. Vortex generators actually improve airflow by delaying boundary layer separation, which can **increase lift** and **reduce drag** in certain conditions. They don’t always reduce cruise speed and can even improve it by reducing drag from flow separation. Instead of lowering the lift-to-drag ratio, they often optimize it, improving performance. Hope that helps!
Some competitive gliders use vortex generators to improve performance. Racers sometimes apply a mixture of oil and carbon to the wing surface, then fly the glider to visualize airflow patterns. Areas of boundary layer separation show up as large pools of oil, while areas with smooth, laminar flow appear as long streaks. By placing vortex generators ahead of the separation zones, they generate small, controlled turbulence that re-energizes the airflow, allowing it to stay attached to the surface. This reduces the separation, effectively smoothing the flow and improving overall wing efficiency. Large boundary layer separation is inefficient because it increases drag, reduces lift, and leads to unpredictable handling. The vortex generators help by keeping the airflow attached to the surface, reducing drag, maintaining lift, and enhancing control, particularly in critical phases like takeoff and landing.
I flew a Cessna one time however that was a competition STOL aircraft and it had an exaggerated amount of VGs placed in a high OAO configuration that made for a very slow cruising plane. But what is interesting is that they made it have a significantly higher lift to drag ratio at slower take off speeds than a typical Cessna. In short, VGs can be used to make planes faster or slower, but in either instance, when used correctly they actually improve efficiency and l/d ratios.
Люблю Уток Рутана❤ Они эстетичны и производительны, но "чайникам" не поддаються🤗 Формирование пограничного слоя турболизаторами... может перфорация или щель😎 Быть Добру✊️ и взлет=штатной посадке👍
Great video and nice Cozy. My Cozy IV will cruise at 185 knots burning < 6.5 gph LOP. My Lightspeed electronic ignition helps. Mine first flew in 2001 and has almost 1000 hrs on it. I have done several 1000 mi non-stop flights FL to CT. On those flights I land with about 15 gal of fuel left starting with 40 gal (topped off with the nose down). I am curious, how do you get 165K views and 22K subscribers? My Cozy videos are no where near that poplular.
Nice airplane. Bad video quality. I got dark overlays on video. Make some comments about airplane or the airport. Actually a small airport description while in air might just do it. Same Video length and upload regularly. Plenty of videos of airplanes but few new on yt.
I admire Rutan designs for his desire to innovate. Which is a nice way of saying he has to be different for the sake of being different. But to make a statement like “so this design is inherently safer” is just wrong. The accident record certainly doesn’t bear that out. There are plusses and minuses to design decisions and there are a lot of minuses to this design including in the safety area.
@@subconsciouslyinyahead7977 There isn't any type of aircraft that someone has not died in. Amateur-built airplanes are not inherently dangerous, just like Flying isn't inherently dangerous. But even more than the Sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any Incompetence, Incapacity or Neglect.
I'm confused, why would you want to reduce the stall speed on the canards with the vortex generators? Don't you want the canards to stall before the main wing stalls? I would think that if anything you would want to put the vortex generators on the main wing to stop dangerous pitching up in a stall :S
I was flummoxed by that, too. I believe what he was saying is that the fore plane was stalling too early, well above the main wing's danger point. It's a cheap and quick fix, sure, but I think either a larger fore plane is needed, or an angle of incidence change. I am not sure about side-by-side seating either in terms of CofG changes.
@@travelbugse2829 The cunard was used by Rutan to meet the requirement to make a plane that essentially cannot stall. The theory (and the reality) that the cunard stalls before the main wing, dropping the nose and lowering the angle of attack avoids a stall on the main wing. But attempting to alter the point at which the cunard stalls is not really productive as the stall characteristics of this design are as benign as it gets.
The vortex generators had nothing to do with reducing the stalling speed! The original canard used on the LongEz and Cozy’s exhibited a phenomenon when flying in rain / and bugs splattering on the leading edge that would cause the canard to lose lift. If the plane was trimmed in cruise then encountered rain it would pitch down, the heavier the rain the more pitch trim was required, ultimately losing the ability to trim out the forces. I personally know pilots that were doing touch and goes at airports surrounded by agricultural and after a few circuits they would lose the ability to trim the pitching down out. They would land, wipe the leading edge and magically the plane performed normally. The vortex generators were installed to counter this. Ultimately Burt Rutan hired John Roncz to design a new canard airfoil which cured the problem.
The Cozy is similar in design and construction to the 2-seat Rutan Long-EZ, from which it is derived, with approval from Burt Rutan. Rutan did not specifically design the plane, but licensed it to others who used his Long-EZ as inspiration
@keithsargent6963 Fore-wings have been used on old and new planes. Many combat jets use them to increase maneuverability, the J10 Chinese jet for example. The Wrights used the Cunard design in the first powered plane, later the Swedish have built many such designs. In the 60s. they built a plane called the Viggen, Rutan used this plane to base his first design. New business jets are being design with them, and the fastest of turboprop plane is the Avanti EVO (Piaggio) which is also a pusher with a fore-wing.
Takeoffs are always lonnnnnnng with super-shallow climbs..... Don't have one but I have seen enough of a few of them to realize they take forever to get out and over obstacles. No thanks!
I missed it. What kind of fuel economy could it get with a couple of normal sized people onboard traveling at cruise speed on a reasonably long trip (say 90% of it's max range)?
whole thing shows us this is good 4 passengers air plan ,I wish if impossible put this bird to examination tests like other builders doing ,if this gentleman wants seale or takes orders for selling plus interior costume made
Sounds like you folks are using those famous "voice activated microphones" in this presentation which invariably leads to bizarre sounding exchanges in conversation. 😊
I've known Cozy pilots that fit that category. I can play with the seat foam to help with fit and some have adjustable rudder pedals allowing for longer legs. Best advice is see if you can find one to sit in.
The final approach sure seemed to me to be really dragged in; too low, too high powered/too fast and thus not properly executed from the point of view of a single piston engined civilian cruising kind of aircraft. Does this have something to do with a necessity of the design of this type? Or is he just demonstrating poor technique? I was nervous watching this guy’s whole handling of the base and final “legs”; he flew them like he was some kind of fighter pilot with one long almost continuous turn from downwind to touchdown. And the extremely abbreviated final approach looked really low and hot to me. Tell me why I’m wrong; I’m just coming at this from a PPL-A point of view trained extensively on Cessna’s 150, 152, 172M, 172R, 172SP, 310J twin, and a Piper PA-28R-200 Arrow … those kind of planes. I was “sweating” that final approach, lest even the smallest thing went wrong on him … like a little downdraft or gust across the fields on short final.
Having flown a Glasair 3 for years, I can tell you that this guy is flying it correctly; you don’t need to be risking stall in steep turns; he is managing the aircraft’s energy correctly.
Great aircraft until the canopy opens in flight. One of these crashed in San Diego a decade or more ago killing a family...all due to the canopy opening.
Not really efficient. They seem efficient because they have very small wing area and therefore, they can fly fast but at the expense of a high stall speed. Its the ratio of top speed/minimum speed what makes an efficient design. Then, the designer chooses how much wing area he wants and that depends on the intended runway length he is designing for. Clyde Cessna was not dumb. He designed his aircraft for typical county airport dimensions, not executive jet airports. There are several fixed wing designs that for the same power fly faster. If they were very efficient why don't aeronautical engineers build canard sailplanes and win contests? Why Reno air racers are not canards? Why fighters are not canards and why commercial airliners are not canards?
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
That's pretty cool! I don't know anything about planes, but the fact that you built it from parts is impressive. Having that intimate knowledge of the machine must be rewarding in a way that's not possible with factory-built aircraft. Congratulations!
I knew someone about twenty years ago with a Velocity. These planes are absolutely incredible.
They really are
I love these experimental plane flight videos. Thanks!
the was about the time of the Velocity SE release, i think ....i don't know how they compare, but kudos to the guy for finishing it out so nicely.
I love this guy’s dry sense of humor 😅
If you're thinking about building one, start the process in your 20's. It takes a longgg time. And hope the heck you don't develop epoxy allergies in the process. Reserve your hangar space when you start building. Sweet cross country plane.
Agreed
Great use of checklists !!
Very nice aircraft thanks for taking me along. :o)
Vortex generators increase the minimum drag and decrease the maximum lift-to-drag ratio. They can help in slow flight as in takeoff and landing, BUT they will reduce cruise speed, nothing is free. Other than that, this is a beautiful speciment of a plane.
Good points, but a bit off. Vortex generators actually improve airflow by delaying boundary layer separation, which can **increase lift** and **reduce drag** in certain conditions. They don’t always reduce cruise speed and can even improve it by reducing drag from flow separation. Instead of lowering the lift-to-drag ratio, they often optimize it, improving performance. Hope that helps!
Some competitive gliders use vortex generators to improve performance. Racers sometimes apply a mixture of oil and carbon to the wing surface, then fly the glider to visualize airflow patterns. Areas of boundary layer separation show up as large pools of oil, while areas with smooth, laminar flow appear as long streaks. By placing vortex generators ahead of the separation zones, they generate small, controlled turbulence that re-energizes the airflow, allowing it to stay attached to the surface. This reduces the separation, effectively smoothing the flow and improving overall wing efficiency.
Large boundary layer separation is inefficient because it increases drag, reduces lift, and leads to unpredictable handling. The vortex generators help by keeping the airflow attached to the surface, reducing drag, maintaining lift, and enhancing control, particularly in critical phases like takeoff and landing.
I flew a Cessna one time however that was a competition STOL aircraft and it had an exaggerated amount of VGs placed in a high OAO configuration that made for a very slow cruising plane. But what is interesting is that they made it have a significantly higher lift to drag ratio at slower take off speeds than a typical Cessna. In short, VGs can be used to make planes faster or slower, but in either instance, when used correctly they actually improve efficiency and l/d ratios.
Very nice video aircraft is really neat and worth the effort you made building it. Thanks for the flight. :o)
Thanks for watching !
Sweet little ride, nice review.
Thanks for watching
looks like it would be fun, for two people...not sure I'd want four....
Definitely not on a high density altitude day
very nice and clean Cozy!!!
Люблю Уток Рутана❤ Они эстетичны и производительны, но "чайникам" не поддаються🤗
Формирование пограничного слоя турболизаторами... может перфорация или щель😎
Быть Добру✊️ и взлет=штатной посадке👍
Great demo vid. Thanx
Thanks for watching!
It's what I'd call a 'dead pan delivery'. Most informative tho.
Great video and nice Cozy. My Cozy IV will cruise at 185 knots burning < 6.5 gph LOP. My Lightspeed electronic ignition helps. Mine first flew in 2001 and has almost 1000 hrs on it. I have done several 1000 mi non-stop flights FL to CT. On those flights I land with about 15 gal of fuel left starting with 40 gal (topped off with the nose down). I am curious, how do you get 165K views and 22K subscribers? My Cozy videos are no where near that poplular.
Nice airplane.
Bad video quality.
I got dark overlays on video.
Make some comments about airplane or the airport.
Actually a small airport description while in air might just do it.
Same Video length and upload regularly.
Plenty of videos of airplanes but few new on yt.
Well done ! ! Thanks for sharing. 👍
You could tell his workmanship is top notch and he knows that plane inside and out. That landing was impressive as well!
Would have liked to see take off.
Looks like a dern great ride. 👍
I admire Rutan designs for his desire to innovate. Which is a nice way of saying he has to be different for the sake of being different. But to make a statement like “so this design is inherently safer” is just wrong. The accident record certainly doesn’t bear that out. There are plusses and minuses to design decisions and there are a lot of minuses to this design including in the safety area.
Accessibility for passengers would be a concern, OK if you're young and fit otherwise how do you get in?
G😮reat presenration.🎉🎉
Thank you
You're welcome
Nice Cozy!
A person just died flying one of these in ca
@@subconsciouslyinyahead7977 There isn't any type of aircraft that someone has not died in. Amateur-built airplanes are not inherently dangerous, just like Flying isn't inherently dangerous. But even more than the Sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any Incompetence, Incapacity or Neglect.
Cool bird!
I want one.
I'm confused, why would you want to reduce the stall speed on the canards with the vortex generators? Don't you want the canards to stall before the main wing stalls? I would think that if anything you would want to put the vortex generators on the main wing to stop dangerous pitching up in a stall :S
Correct. His use of vortex generators are counter productive, but he wanted to lower stall speed in slow flight anyway.
I was flummoxed by that, too. I believe what he was saying is that the fore plane was stalling too early, well above the main wing's danger point. It's a cheap and quick fix, sure, but I think either a larger fore plane is needed, or an angle of incidence change. I am not sure about side-by-side seating either in terms of CofG changes.
I note it's a four-seater, so he has to have side-by-side seating of course - but still a bit of a headache for balancing it IMO.
@@travelbugse2829 The cunard was used by Rutan to meet the requirement to make a plane that essentially cannot stall. The theory (and the reality) that the cunard stalls before the main wing, dropping the nose and lowering the angle of attack avoids a stall on the main wing. But attempting to alter the point at which the cunard stalls is not really productive as the stall characteristics of this design are as benign as it gets.
The vortex generators had nothing to do with reducing the stalling speed!
The original canard used on the LongEz and Cozy’s exhibited a phenomenon when flying in rain / and bugs splattering on the leading edge that would cause the canard to lose lift. If the plane was trimmed in cruise then encountered rain it would pitch down, the heavier the rain the more pitch trim was required, ultimately losing the ability to trim out the forces. I personally know pilots that were doing touch and goes at airports surrounded by agricultural and after a few circuits they would lose the ability to trim the pitching down out. They would land, wipe the leading edge and magically the plane performed normally. The vortex generators were installed to counter this. Ultimately Burt Rutan hired John Roncz to design a new canard airfoil which cured the problem.
Cool plane!
Hello!!! Does anyone remember Burt Rutan???
This is not a new design at all!!!
The Cozy is similar in design and construction to the 2-seat Rutan Long-EZ, from which it is derived, with approval from Burt Rutan. Rutan did not specifically design the plane, but licensed it to others who used his Long-EZ as inspiration
The owner made this very clear though.
This was designed by Nat Puffer.
@keithsargent6963 Fore-wings have been used on old and new planes. Many combat jets use them to increase maneuverability, the J10 Chinese jet for example. The Wrights used the Cunard design in the first powered plane, later the Swedish have built many such designs. In the 60s. they built a plane called the Viggen, Rutan used this plane to base his first design. New business jets are being design with them, and the fastest of turboprop plane is the Avanti EVO (Piaggio) which is also a pusher with a fore-wing.
To get the same performance from a certified plane you would spend 800k
I am interested in purchasing this air craft, how do I get a hold of you?
J.k.
What happened to the takeoff
Takeoffs are always lonnnnnnng with super-shallow climbs..... Don't have one but I have seen enough of a few of them to realize they take forever to get out and over obstacles. No thanks!
ok we missed half the conver on landing, roll out and didnt catch what was meant by 99% of the time in trouble???
I missed it. What kind of fuel economy could it get with a couple of normal sized people onboard traveling at cruise speed on a reasonably long trip (say 90% of it's max range)?
25-35 MPG - the latter only if you climb high -17.5 and suck down on oxygen
Just to use some numbers from the video. (Had to wait patiently for the cruise speed.) 165 kt /7.5 gph = 22 ktpg or 25 mpg.
Someone crashed in CA… fyi that’s why I’m here😮
me too.
whole thing shows us this is good 4 passengers air plan ,I wish if impossible put this bird to examination tests like other builders doing ,if this gentleman wants seale or takes orders for selling plus interior costume made
Sounds like you folks are using those famous "voice activated microphones" in this presentation which invariably leads to bizarre sounding exchanges in conversation.
😊
I soloed at longmont earlier this month!
pilot ic squlch should be a little lower, most words loose the fist second which was quite annoying
What's with the audio ? Why no take-off in the video ? Annoying
It's a 4 seater but seems a bit cramped. Would a 220lb 6ft6 person fit into this aircraft? Anyone have the answer?
I've known Cozy pilots that fit that category. I can play with the seat foam to help with fit and some have adjustable rudder pedals allowing for longer legs. Best advice is see if you can find one to sit in.
what is nmpg on this??
Nose wheel looks like it could just fold if you come in too hard
no volume ???
On a hot day with 3 people and full fuel.....she'd never climb out of her own shadow.
this guy needs to be a teacher/trainer, (the aircraft owner)
yugo,i will stay
I want a PTA6 on thhis
That would be awesome
It would be like a mini Beechcraft Starship!
Good ole LMO
The wild west of the sky 🤣
You missed the take off! Come on
Id want a glider so I can go without fuel if I had to
Motor glider, they have some good ones now.
KFNL?
KLMO
Long easy, not a lon easy..
Couldn’t pay me to get into one of those little death traps. No thanks.
The final approach sure seemed to me to be really dragged in; too low, too high powered/too fast and thus not properly executed from the point of view of a single piston engined civilian cruising kind of aircraft.
Does this have something to do with a necessity of the design of this type? Or is he just demonstrating poor technique?
I was nervous watching this guy’s whole handling of the base and final “legs”; he flew them like he was some kind of fighter pilot with one long almost continuous turn from downwind to touchdown. And the extremely abbreviated final approach looked really low and hot to me.
Tell me why I’m wrong; I’m just coming at this from a PPL-A point of view trained extensively on Cessna’s 150, 152, 172M, 172R, 172SP, 310J twin, and a Piper PA-28R-200 Arrow … those kind of planes. I was “sweating” that final approach, lest even the smallest thing went wrong on him … like a little downdraft or gust across the fields on short final.
Not pretending to know but would the lack of flaps partially explain a more shallow approach? Got no excuses for the ultra short final.
He probably was a fighter pilot. He did mention he was Air Force.
I think it was the low camera angle. That made the approach look extremely low
Having flown a Glasair 3 for years, I can tell you that this guy is flying it correctly; you don’t need to be risking stall in steep turns; he is managing the aircraft’s energy correctly.
Yeah thats a short dash, if you nose dive the last thing you see is your azz.
This is a copy of Burt Rutan's Q2 from 1980. 40+ years ago. Hardly a new design.
I think you might be thinking about the Long-EZ which is what the Cozy is derived from.
Sure it is.
Oh look! It’s a 4 seater Vari-eze. So, design-wise, we’re still building 50 year old designs…with minimal improvements.
How to tell you did not watch or at least listen. The aircraft was started over 25 years ago and completed and flying over 15 years ago...
Why change something that’s good.
Tits on females were designed a long time ago, and they still perform their intended functions without being replaced.
Sure you build one or more 😂😂😂
Great aircraft until the canopy opens in flight. One of these crashed in San Diego a decade or more ago killing a family...all due to the canopy opening.
Not really efficient. They seem efficient because they have very small wing area and therefore, they can fly fast but at the expense of a high stall speed. Its the ratio of top speed/minimum speed what makes an efficient design. Then, the designer chooses how much wing area he wants and that depends on the intended runway length he is designing for. Clyde Cessna was not dumb. He designed his aircraft for typical county airport dimensions, not executive jet airports. There are several fixed wing designs that for the same power fly faster. If they were very efficient why don't aeronautical engineers build canard sailplanes and win contests? Why Reno air racers are not canards? Why fighters are not canards and why commercial airliners are not canards?
Errrr there are actually numerous fighters in service that have canards. Eurofighter Typhoon for instance.
Stupid design. I like the pusher engine, but keep the tail on the backside.
My All time favorite plane 🛬🛩️ cozy 🛬 just the best 🏆🥇
The interviewer talks too fast and interrupts the other man.