Opinions please....Cozy IV vs. Velocity
Kemo
I would LOVE to hear peoples opinions about the following kits:
1.) Cozy MK IV
2.) Velocity Standard
As far as I'm concerned, they both look the same but I would love to hear
others opinions as to how they compare since you all are the experts...NOT
me! They both fit my criteria of 4 seaters, cross country capable, nice
aesthetics, IFR capable, etc. Speed of building however is a MAJOR concern
for me. I don't want to have to spend many years building a kit form
scratch so I'll probably be interested in employing some help....preferably
with me standing next to the person.
Any suggestions people?
Thanks as always.
Dave
carve your own foam,.... cheaper than a kit, but many more hours. (based on
what I gather from the associated web pages)
Simon Ramirez
You should also take a look at the Aerocanard. It is a kit airplane
that very closely resembles the Cozy Mark IV but makes some improvements.
The kit should take years away from the build time. It is made by Aerocad,
and you can visit them at www.aerocad.com. Jeff Russell, owner of Aerocad,
is a well known and respected canardian. I have flown in his factory
demonstrator twice, and they were the best rides I've ever had next to a
B-25 ride at Sun 'N Fun.
Regardless of which of the three you choose, though, you cannot go
wrong given your mission profile given below. The Aerocanard and Velocity
have more room in the back to accommodate bigger people.
-Simon
Kemo <kmo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:AWZW4.68123$k5.17...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Kemo
"Simon Ramirez" <s_ra...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uzqdrAex$GA.283@cpmsnbbsa08...
> Kemo,
> You should also take a look at the Aerocanard. It is a kit airplane
> that very closely resembles the Cozy Mark IV but makes some improvements.
> The kit should take years away from the build time. It is made by
Aerocad,
> and you can visit them at www.aerocad.com. Jeff Russell, owner of
Aerocad,
> is a well known and respected canardian. I have flown in his factory
> demonstrator twice, and they were the best rides I've ever had next to a
> B-25 ride at Sun 'N Fun.
> Regardless of which of the three you choose, though, you cannot go
> wrong given your mission profile given below. The Aerocanard and Velocity
> have more room in the back to accommodate bigger people.
> -Simon
Sounds good. ;-)
Has anyone else had experience with this aircraft???
HornetBall
>for me. I don't want to have to spend many years building a kit form
>scratch so I'll probably be interested in employing some help....preferably
>with me standing next to the person.
Why don't you just buy one then? The Velocity has been around more than 15
years. They come up for sale regularly. The MKIV less so.
If you don't want to build, you shouldn't consider any of these kits. They are
all labor intensive. You don't sound like the kind of guy who'll finish one
(which is OK, neither am I at this stage of my life).
DAlexan424
>>for me. I don't want to have to spend many years building a kit form
>>scratch so I'll probably be interested in employing some help....preferably
>>with me standing next to the person.
>
Velocity has fast build kits for the flying surfaces and the fuse/gear
assemblies. Between the two, it would knock probably 1200 hours of the build
time. Have a shop do the avionics, another couple hundred, paint some more time
off.
Depending on the size of your pocket book, a Velocity could be built in less
than 1000 hours. I know I would have been about 750 hours further ahead if I
had purchased the wing fsat build,but I'm not in a speed contest. As Nissan
sez..."Enjoy the ride".
Dale Alexander
Velocity 173 RG Elite
Bob Romanko
You should buy a plane, as building doesn't seem to be high on
your list of things to do. There are quite a few completed planes
out there if you just take the time and have some patience.
Another suggestion regarding my experience with the Cozy MK IV.
They don't call 'em "Cozy" for nothing. Nat Puffer is a small guy at
around 155 lbs. I'm 230. I sat in his Cozy in Mesa, AZ. No...I
SCREWED myself into his Cozy in Mesa. It's a tight fit if your over
the FAA 170 lbs in my opinion. My wife's a small gal, and she didn't
like the cockpit either. Nat's a great guy, and the Cozy's a wonderful
plane, but it's too @#$% small in there for my taste.
Now all the Cozy builders who weigh over 200 are going to flame me.
That's okay. While you guys are on your diets eating grass, I'm
chewing on a T-bone and building my Bearhawk! When I get done
flying cross country, even though I'm about 50mph slower than you
guys, I can roll a sleeping bag out behind the seats and have a nice
snooze. Try that in a canard...
Bob "Pass the Mushrooms" Romanko
Builder Bearhawk #399
High-Time "Stick and Rudder" Reader
PP-ASEL, A&P, AOPA, EAA
Based at Charlottesville, VA (CHO)
Kemo wrote in message ...
>Hello again!
>
>I would LOVE to hear peoples opinions about the following kits:
>
>1.) Cozy MK IV
>2.) Velocity Standard
>
>As far as I'm concerned, they both look the same but I would love to hear
>others opinions as to how they compare since you all are the experts...NOT
>me! They both fit my criteria of 4 seaters, cross country capable, nice
>aesthetics, IFR capable, etc. Speed of building however is a MAJOR concern
>for me. I don't want to have to spend many years building a kit form
>scratch so I'll probably be interested in employing some help....preferably
>with me standing next to the person.
>
Dave Driscoll
> Kemo:
>
> You should buy a plane, as building doesn't seem to be high on
> your list of things to do. There are quite a few completed planes
> out there if you just take the time and have some patience.
>
> Another suggestion regarding my experience with the Cozy MK IV.
> They don't call 'em "Cozy" for nothing. Nat Puffer is a small guy at
> around 155 lbs. I'm 230. I sat in his Cozy in Mesa, AZ. No...I
> SCREWED myself into his Cozy in Mesa. It's a tight fit if your over
> the FAA 170 lbs in my opinion. My wife's a small gal, and she didn't
> like the cockpit either. Nat's a great guy, and the Cozy's a wonderful
> plane, but it's too @#$% small in there for my taste.
>
> Now all the Cozy builders who weigh over 200 are going to flame me.
> That's okay. While you guys are on your diets eating grass, I'm
> chewing on a T-bone and building my Bearhawk! When I get done
> flying cross country, even though I'm about 50mph slower than you
> guys, I can roll a sleeping bag out behind the seats and have a nice
> snooze. Try that in a canard...
>
> Bob "Pass the Mushrooms" Romanko
> Builder Bearhawk #399
> High-Time "Stick and Rudder" Reader
> PP-ASEL, A&P, AOPA, EAA
> Based at Charlottesville, VA (CHO)
>
You mean a 200 mph seats four with LOTS of bags, sleeps two comfortably, canard
like my Defiant (god I love that name, I buy a f*^$&%$ blender if they named it
that).
Now if I could just get the thing back in the air.
Dave Driscoll
Defiant N3XK
"Everybody knows a good landing is one you can walk away from. A GREAT landing
is defined as one that the plane can be flown again afterwards......"
Kemo
"Bob Romanko" <rom...@nospam.virginia.edu> wrote in message
news:8gjhct$4fi$1...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
> Kemo:
>
> You should buy a plane, as building doesn't seem to be high on
> your list of things to do.
I WANT to build a plane....just not spend 5 years doing it. That's why I
would like fast build options. 2 years is okay but anything longer then
that may lose my interest and jeopardize my relationship. By no means am I
against building.....in fact, it will probably be more fun to build than
fly. ;-)
Thanks to everyone who has help with this decision!!!!! Your comments have
been EXCELLENT.
Kevin O'Brien
<dris...@execpc.com> wrote:
> You mean a 200 mph seats four with LOTS of bags, sleeps two comfortably,
> canard
>
> like my Defiant (god I love that name, I buy a f*^$&%$ blender if they
> named it
> that).
> Now if I could just get the thing back in the air.
Are you sure it's not the alliteration? Dave Driscoll's Defiant?
Seriously, a great plane, and while I'm sure we all understand why Burt
Rutan and RAF exited the homebuilt arena, leaving the Defiant an
undeservedly small share of the registry, we can all feel rather brought
down over it. You didn't mention the efficiency!
Just FYI (you might know this already) the RAF had a plane with this
name during the last European unpleasantness (well, before Jugoslavia).
It looked like a Hurricane but with a humongous turret on the back, and
was flown as a two seater fighter rather like the Bristol F.1 of the
Great War. It had a somewhat chequered record, but more than one
Messerschmitt driver's last thought was an incomplete gloat over
sneaking up behind an 'unsuspecting' Hurricane. Also the Royal Navy has
named five or six ships Defiant over the last four hundred years.
None of those has any discernable utility as a kitchen appliance,
unfortunately.
cheers
-=K=-
Kevin O'Brien
<kmo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1.) Cozy MK IV
> 2.) Velocity Standard
>
> As far as I'm concerned, they both look the same but I would love to hear
> others opinions as to how they compare since you all are the
> experts...NOT
> me! They both fit my criteria of 4 seaters, cross country capable, nice
> aesthetics, IFR capable, etc. Speed of building however is a MAJOR
> concern
> for me. I don't want to have to spend many years building a kit form
> scratch so I'll probably be interested in employing some
> help....preferably
> with me standing next to the person.
Cozy is built from plans, Velocity from a kit. Velocity is probably a
faster build overall, although the stuff that seems to take all the time
(systems!).
Velocity is more credible as a four seater. It lifts more weight and has
more room. They don't call the Cozy the 'Roomy' for a reason! Before you
choose a big ticket, big investment (money's not the thing but you are
investing irreplaceable years!) item like this make sure to see and sit
in them both. You might like the Cozy. Both the Swings and Nat Puffer
have great reputations in the business.
There is a company called AeroCAD run by a Jeff Russell that makes the
AeroCanard, which started off as an unauthorised kit of the Cozy. The
Aerocanard is a bit different. At one time Russell had a dispute with
Nat Puffer but it is resolved (I am told in this forum) and they are
coexisting amicably.
There is also a company in Europe kitting the Cozy but they do not sell
into North America AFAIK.
Both will probably be about the same to insure. Instrument rating helps
(it's becoming a necessity in anything faster than a bicycle, it seems).
So does a high perf/complex signoff, even if this is not required by the
operating limitations on the plane you finally choose. You might be able
to reduce your rates. It may not help your insurance but will definitely
help your comfort level to get some EZ time.
You should have no difficulty getting builders assistance for either
aircraft. For example, I think (and the bright lights in this forum will
correct me if I'm wrong) that Jeff Russell got his start assisting cozy
builders. As long as you are there and helping most of the time this is
perfectly legal and will not only meet your goals for speeding the
build, will also let you leverage other people's experience rather than
trial-and-error it all yourself. Plus, many hands may make light work
but in my experience many eyes makes SAFE work. Where one guy might
leave out a bolt or lay the glass the wrong way, two guys are much less
likely to.
Good luck and keep us posted!
cheers
-=K=-
PS there is a huge amount of info on velocity and cozy in the archive.
Hit Deja.com (click on the discussions link) and power-search it up! -K
a
The Pommie plane was the Boulton-Paul Defiant. Rather poor day fighter, but
later used as night fighter.
Kevin O'Brien <ke...@useorganisationasadomainname.com> wrote in message
news:kevin-73CC74.10015828052000@[205.252.14.134]...
Kemo
designs look similar externally, it appears that is all. IMHO, it looks
like the Velocity has a "slicker" look to it as well as a more professional
interior. The Cozy, as many people stated, has some tight quarters as well
as a very "non-polished" look to it's insides. I wasn't to fond of the high
bench style seating which requirs the pilot or co-pilot to literally STEP
over the front seats to access their luggage. The Velocity appears to have
a very esthetic interior as well as exterior. I know I may get bashed for
wanting esthetics with my plane, but if I'm spending around $100K for it,
thousands of hours of building, I would like for it to look as best as it
can....and in my opinion, the Cozy's inside LOOKS like a homebuilt.
Talk to me people....am I missing something or have I only seen the
"non-polished" version of the Cozy? Unfortunately, I haven't seen interior
pictures of an AeroCad yet. However, I am going to Oshkosh and plan on
spending the entire time looking at designs, speaking with manufacturers,
and talking to builders of designs I am interested in pursuing.
Thanks.
HornetBall
>"non-polished" version of the Cozy? Unfortunately, I haven't seen interior
>pictures of an AeroCad yet. However, I am going to Oshkosh and plan on
>spending the entire time looking at designs, speaking with manufacturers,
>and talking to builders of designs I am interested in pursuing.
Hey dude. YOU build the airplane and YOU build the interior. It can be as
professional or homebuilt as you like. It's your money and your time.
KBoatri144
>"non-polished" version of the Cozy?
Any Cozy, RV, or whatever can be finished to whatever level of interior trim
the builder likes. A friend of mine has a beautiful Cozy Classic, with a well
appointed interior. It certainly looks polished. Also, I seem to remember an
Oshkosh grand champion Cozy from a few years back, which had leather
everything, and a panel that looked like it came out of a 767.
Next time you are at a fly-in, take a look at various examples of the same
design. They will range from spartan to luxury car nice. It is your choice.
One thing to remember is that all those goodies add up. If I recall, the Grand
Champion Cozy I mentioned above came in 200 or 300 pounds heavier than the
prototype, and certainly suffered penalties in performance and utility.
KB
RobertR237
<kmo...@yahoo.com> writes:
> The Velocity appears to have
>a very esthetic interior as well as exterior. I know I may get bashed for
>wanting esthetics with my plane, but if I'm spending around $100K for it,
>thousands of hours of building, I would like for it to look as best as it
>can....and in my opinion, the Cozy's inside LOOKS like a homebuilt.
>
>Talk to me people....am I missing something or have I only seen the
>"non-polished" version of the Cozy? Unfortunately, I haven't seen interior
>pictures of an AeroCad yet. However, I am going to Oshkosh and plan on
>spending the entire time looking at designs, speaking with manufacturers,
>and talking to builders of designs I am interested in pursuing.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>
First, you are not wrong for wanting a great looking interior to your plane. It
doesn't matter rather you are spending $10k or $100k, if that is important to
you then go for it. Much depends on the mission for your aircraft. If you are
building a weekend fun machine for strictly sport flying the interior appoints
will probably mean little. They should be sparce and light. On the other
hand, that cross country cruiser which also needs to keep the significant other
happy on long trips should probably have a few more appointments.
Second, the interior of most homebuilts is entirely upto you the builder. If
you wanted to do a luxury interior for the Cozy there is nothing preventing it.
You can make the changes necessary to make the Cozy look just as good as the
Velocity. Don't let the photos of a couple of examples make the decision for
you. Look at what capabilities and options that are available. A trip to
Oshkosh will be a great way to see the capabilities and the differences that
the individual builders put into their aircraft. You will see everything from
a few carpet remnants and old stadium seats to the rich leather interiors with
the look of the finest luxury cars. (Most of the latter are professionaly
done.)
I will warn you about a few points though. The cost of these polished
interiors is high from both a dollar standpoint and from a time standpoint.
Like you, I wanted a great looking and somewhat more versitle interior on my
KIS Cruiser. The basic plans and kit provided for a simple fixed seating
arrangement with glass panels providing the base for the seats and seat backs.
The only adjustments would be the rudder pedals and that was limited. I have
totally modified the interior and have replace the pilot/co-pilot seats with
adjustable / reclining seats from a sport utility vehicle. The back seats were
modified to provide locking storage and fold down back. The center console has
been reworked front and back to provide storage, arm rest and is removable to
service the controls. The dual sticks between the seats have been replaced
with a single center control stick. (Required change from manual flaps to
electric flaps.)
The cost so far has been several hundred dollars and several hundred hours of
build time. I still have a long ways to go to finish the reworked console and
to do the upholstry work. I also still have the overhead console with fresh
air venting to finish. The benefits will hopefully be a more comfortable
arrangement for me and will most definately be better for my wife since she
will be able to move the seat far enough forward to reach the rudder pedals.
Finally, to your original question of Velocity vs. Cozy, I would like to say
that once you see and try out the Velocity Elite or Elite LS you will probably
have your answer. The entry and exit ease of these aircraft over the Original
Velocity and the Cozy will probably win you over immediately. They are real
nice and the difference will appeal to your significant other as well.
Bob Reed
http://robertr237.virtualave.net/ (KIS Project)
KIS Cruiser in progress...2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-) (I can hope!)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freidman)
RobertR237
(KBoatri144) writes:
>
>One thing to remember is that all those goodies add up. If I recall, the
>Grand
>Champion Cozy I mentioned above came in 200 or 300 pounds heavier than the
>prototype, and certainly suffered penalties in performance and utility.
>
>KB
>
>
"Suffered penalties in performance and utility" ?
I agree that the added options for interior extras will add to the weight and
thus will have an effect on the performance but will question the effect on
utility. In my case the work that I am doing on my interior will most
definately add to the weight but the payback will be in a far more comfortable
environment for long cross country trips. My wife is rather short and could
not reach the rudder pedals if the standard design were optimized for me. She
also likes to lay back and snooze during long trips which could not be done
without the reclining seats. The utility comes from making the plane fit the
needs of the builder / pilot.
Hiroo
it is a homebuilt, YOU decide what it looks like on the inside.
That said, one of the reason you see so many Velocities with 'nicer' looking
interior may be partly attributable to the factory offering of interior
package. They offer choices of fabric or leather seats and upholstry
options that are fitted for the plane. This greately reduces the complexity
and work involved in creating the 'professional look'. I do not know if
Cozy have such options. Since it is a plans built, I doubt there is.
The down side is, as always, cost. You will need to shell out about 1.6K
for it (the exact figure escapes me).
When I look at Rutan type kits on the market, I consider Velocity more like
a sedan while Berkut and Long-EZ as roadsters. People who build Velocities
seems to be more concerned about long trip comfort, professional (if a bit
conservative) look than rather Spartan but purely functional interior you
may find on other models. Cozy fits somewhere inbetween.
In my opinion, the interior you see on the planes are reflective of the
mission profile of the aircraft. On my Velocity, I plan to put in 'cushy'
interior with extra sound dampering and insulation. I will sacrifice the
useful load but my mission profile dictates 2 person long trips or four
person short hops. It makes sense for mine.
Hiroo
Velocity SUV under construction.
www.velocitybuilder.com
"KBoatri144" <kboat...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000531001947...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
> >Talk to me people....am I missing something or have I only seen the
> >"non-polished" version of the Cozy?
>
> Any Cozy, RV, or whatever can be finished to whatever level of interior
trim
> the builder likes. A friend of mine has a beautiful Cozy Classic, with a
well
> appointed interior. It certainly looks polished. Also, I seem to
remember an
> Oshkosh grand champion Cozy from a few years back, which had leather
> everything, and a panel that looked like it came out of a 767.
>
> Next time you are at a fly-in, take a look at various examples of the same
> design. They will range from spartan to luxury car nice. It is your
choice.
>
Kemo
> First, you are not wrong for wanting a great looking interior to your
plane. It
> doesn't matter rather you are spending $10k or $100k, if that is important
to
> you then go for it. Much depends on the mission for your aircraft. If
you are
> building a weekend fun machine for strictly sport flying the interior
appoints
> will probably mean little. They should be sparce and light. On the other
> hand, that cross country cruiser which also needs to keep the significant
other
> happy on long trips should probably have a few more appointments.
Well, I am looking for an airplane that can take me to conferences around
the country as comfortable as possible. In addition, I would like a vehicle
that my wife and I can take another couple to lunch on an island like
Martha's Vineyard or Nantuckett. For us, this plane is a practical aircraft
not a sport flying machine....I may leave my next project to that. ;-)
> I will warn you about a few points though. The cost of these polished
> interiors is high from both a dollar standpoint and from a time
standpoint.
Velocity lists the Leather interior kit at $2400....I didn't think that this
was all that bad considering the vinyl is $1350. However, I will probably
look into a local upholstering company....it may save a few hundred and I
can custom design. ;-)
> Finally, to your original question of Velocity vs. Cozy, I would like to
say
> that once you see and try out the Velocity Elite or Elite LS you will
probably
> have your answer. The entry and exit ease of these aircraft over the
Original
> Velocity and the Cozy will probably win you over immediately. They are
real
> nice and the difference will appeal to your significant other as well.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of having to slide on the strake to get in. Gull
wing doors look nice. However, Oshkosh will be the final proving grounds.
Thanks
KBoatri144
>"Suffered penalties in performance and utility" ?
>
>I agree that the added options for interior extras will add to the weight and
>thus will have an effect on the performance but will question the effect on
>utility.
Bob,
My definition of utility here was the reduction in useful load. Lets say a
good gross weight for a Cozy is 1800 lb (just a WAG, I don't have the numbers).
If you add 200 lb of stuff to the basic airframe, that means you can't
(shouldn't?) expect the same useful load as the stripped version. This means
less cargo, less fuel, or less of both.
KB
RobertR237
(KBoatri144) writes:
I understand and figured that is what you ment. I just wanted to bring out
that utility can also mean usefullness as well. Sort of like beauty is in the
eyes of the beholder, utility is satisfying the needs of the builder.