John Slade

Dennis Oelman is the man for this. he builds and sells them. Reputadly excellent work. He recently advertised a set.

>Like why would I need one. What do I miss out on if I don't have one? OK, Jim. You asked for it Top ten reasons for having a parking brake in a Cozy: 10. Saves having to keep you're feet on the brakes during runup 9. Makes you feel less rushed during pre takeoff checks 8. Helps you remember what it was like to fly a 172 7. Stops the plane moving about the patio when you're working on the back end 6. Lets you stop REALLY quickly if you engage it before touch down 5. Gives you another lever in the cockpit to impress people with 4. Something to scratch you're left knee on during long flights 3. more weight at the front. Saves using ballast 2. Another place to check for leaks and, finally, the number 1 reason for having a parking brake in a pusher...... Stops the plane running off by itself and ramming a hanger when you hand prop it on full throttle with no-one in the plane. Sorry, Jim. I just couldnt resist that one.

My parking brake is just above the electrical conduit outlet on the forward face of the IP bulkhead left side. It's actuated by a lever by my left knee. Note the fluid stains where I forgot to put teflon on the fittings. The actuator isnt finished yet. It needs some flox & BID for structure, a shrink wrap cover, a handle and a nut on the end. After the upholstery is in I plan to pop rivet a small aluminum guide with detents for on and off positions. Hope this helps. Regards, John Slade

You will. I'll be testing the s..t out of it and will report back. As far as I know the main failure mode is that it doesnt energise. Result = return fuel goes to default tank.

Jim, >I just don't like the idea of a pump dedicated to a tank. Strange. To me it makes more sense. >can't see any ADVANTAGE to dedicating a pump to a tank over having >parallel pumps feeding the fuel rail. I guess we all have our hangups. Mine seems to be redundancy. >What do dedicated pumps buy you that you can't get from parallel >pumps? What good is a parallel pump when you have a line leak and they're both sucking air, or if you have a line or vent blockage or contamination. OTOH, what do/can they cost you in the area of more serious failure modes? >With dedicated pumps, you lose the fuel in the tank served by the >failed pump. True, but my engine will still be running while I find a place to put her down. Timing of a failure and the options (or lack of) it leaves you can be real important. Timing is only a big issue if you're in a situation where all the fuel from the other tank is already gone. With a 1/2 hour reserve or better this should never be serious a problem. This is critical to you because you're so anal about getting to last drop of fuel. >I am very aware that I am really mind-f**king this thing. Its worth the effort. OTOH I think we've been around this circle a few times. There are pros and cons to every system. >How does Tracy's method substantially increase plumbing? It just seemed that way to me. Physical constraints made it hard to T the line before the pumps, then T it back again. The way I'm doing it now everything seems balanced, logical and simple. Its hard to explain, but this way just "feels right". >Wish I had a nice tidy package for you Well..., thank you Jim. Some other time perhaps. Unless someone else has something new and constructive to add that hasnt already been said I suggest that we bring this thread to a close while I get on with the installation. My next post will include a parts list and pictures of the installed system. But before I go..... Just to confuse the issue I was at my local hydrolics supply store today picking up some AN fittings. The guy seemd to have everything so, to stump him, I asked for a small, lightweight, 12V normally open, continuous duty three way solenoid valve. Sure, he said, and plonked one down on the counter. $76. Body is anodized aluminum. It directs input to one port when energised, and to the other when the power is off. Cool. I think I'd better think it out again.... John

I'll let you know.

Each supply will have a manual shutoff valve for maintenance purposes only. This is not accessible in flight. The EFI fuel pumps has a check valve built in, and will not pass fuel unless power is on. [Later note] I added push pull cable control of the shut off valves.

>I think you're on the home stretch. Yea right. Unfortunately, the theory didnt work out in practice. Either that, or it just didnt "feel right". I'm part way through installing the system and I don't like it. Too many connections, T fittings and pumps. I'm rethinking the whole thing. Here's plan 9f... I'm going to re-install the plans weatherhead manual valve in the seatback and use it to switch the return. The feed is already switched by the electric pumps being on or off, so I'll be able to draw and feed from either tank. This system is a bit more pipe, but an even lower parts count. Of course there's the fuel management issue of switching pumps but forgetting to switch returns. I dont see that being an issue. Doing both at the same time will be an easy habit to learn. Certainly less of an issue than remembering to turn off the transfer pump. I'll probably fit a couple of microswitches to warn about crossfeed. Unless I plumb a "both" position for the return I guess I wont be able to have both pumps on when taking off with both tanks full to the brim, but other than that I have my redundant fuel system back. If anyone sees any problems, I'd like to hear them. John Slade

>Much to our embarrassment, Gary's story is accurate. Wow. Isn't that refreshing! There's nothing like screwing up, admitting it, and fixing it. Best PR you can get. >speak to the wife about adding a new hard dollar value I'd speak softly. $12k can be a VERY hard dollar item. Mine's reserved - with the wife, that is. I wrote an EFIS/one into the prenup. John Slade

Fellow Wanklers; Help me out here. I'm ready to get some hoses made and start hooking up the oil, water etc. to my engine. Unfortunately I have very little idea what I'm doing. I've taken five pictures of the engine and posted them to my web site at: http://www.kgarden.com/cozy/engparts.htm I'd really appreciate an email from anyone who can help me identify the 10 items labelled. Any additional info or suggestions welcome. Regards, John Slade

I agree. This EWP looks very interesting. I'm tempted to get one just to spite the "bearded one" who says it can't work. If I hadn't just spent a small fortune getting my stock pump modified and welded with AN fittings I'd be considering an EWP. Maybe I'll retrofit one later. John Slade

Dale >This ability to suck air is what scares me ... I don't want to get into the game of defending what I have (or plan) but I don't see where sucking air comes into it. Am I missing something? In a nutshell, here's the current design... The feed comes from the right strake tank, through a gascolator, splits to two pumps and filters then goes to the rail. Return is to the right strake only. A facet pump draws from the bottom of the left strake and feeds to the top of the right strake to permit fuel transfer. For ease of discussion, lets call the left strake the "reserve" tank and the right strake the "main" tank. OK, if you drain the reserve tank dry by transferring all fuel, then the facet will suck air. No big deal. Other than this both pumps always have fuel as long as there's fuel in the plane. With this (Tracy's Crooks) method the "main" tank can be considered the "sump" with all the benefits you list for a sump. You just have two tanks instead of three, thereby eliminating the "complexity" of installing a third tank without loosing any of the benefits. >A good idea will come to you since you seem like a pretty smart guy. Well thanks, but this is the part of the trouble. There are a lot of pretty smart guys in this world of experimentals, and they all have good ideas. The tricky part seems to be bringing all the good ideas together and designing a system with all pros and no cons. So, what are the remaining cons in the above system? Jim & I have discussed the issue of blocked vents by phone, and we feel this is a non issue unless both vents get blocked at once (unlikely). Pilot workload is the only "con" I can see, and having become disciplined to tank switching in a Piper, I really dont see this as a problem. Rather an advantage. I guess this is a personal issue, but I prefer a system which requires periodic pilot intervention (and allows a back-up fuel supply) to a "both" system which, I think, helps some pilots forget about fuel until its all gone. George, I have a plenty of mogas and "pop" bottles. Testing the return flow at idle is definately something I plan to do once the system is plumbed. If you'd like to come over and hold the stop watch you'd be most welcome. Regards, John

Jim. Damn. I thought I had it all figured out. You're right. Fuel pump failure on the return tank would be a bad situation. Of course I could add the facet transfer option to solve this problem, but then I'd need a check valve to stop fuel being sucked backwards through the facet pump. Maybe two pumps on the return tank is an easier way to go. On the issue of which tank to return to, my thinking was that that I need to keep an eye on the tank that doesnt receive the return fuel. As you say, the return tank will tend to have more fuel in it, and this tends to balance the pilot when solo, but I'd rather trim the plane and be able to watch the one with the least fuel. John Still "blowing in the wind" looking for THE answer.

NiceEz said: My idea, which I never posted is to use a central sump (only 4 gals and have two lines exiting the sump leading to independent filters then separate electric fuel pumps which in turn lead to the rail. That's a well proven alternative. I'm avoiding the central sump for a few reasons: 1. The gravity feed to a single sump can cause problems. Jim Sower has had some bad (read new underware) experience with this. Tell us all about it, Jim 2. I'd like to save the weight and space for the air conditioning system which I hope to fit in the hell hole one day. There is no easy way to fit a mechanical pump to a Mazda 13B that I know of, and this probably wouldnt work for fuel injection anyway. Was said: <This method takes into account that YOU and ONLY YOU must refuel your airplane. (Eliminating the wrong fuel) In your case where you are porbably going to use Mogas this does not work as easily.> I plan to supervise fueling, but just in case I slip up one time, I'm having special circular labels printed advising that the fuel type and the requirement for 2 stroke oil additive. (this is needed for lubrication if you remove the metering pump as most 13B flyers do). >Besides, we need someone to prove your system works Yea, right! I hate being everyone's elses test pilot. This is the biggest reason of all for sticking to something someone else has done if at all possible, but then of course, we'd all be lying down in a one-place pusher biplane....

>I recon he'll quietly retire from the thread and go to work... On the contrary, I'll be reading comments on this one until I fly and afterwards too. This thread has over 1000 views for a good reason. People want to find the "right" way to do this job. I got my fuel pumps and fittings back from Ed Heishman yesterday. He made AN flare fittings to fit both ends of the pump I got from Tracy, so now I'm ready to finalize the fuel installation. (he also beefed up my mount, made and welded AN fittings for the rad, cutoff and welded my water pump and made AN fittings to fit my oil coolers). I've abandoned the idea of solenoid valves. (too much added complexity and too many associated failure modes) Based on all the input from here and elsewhere, my latest plan is Tracy's system with a couple of modifications... My left tank will be the "sump". Return will always be to this tank. I will run a pump and filter from each tank to the rail. That's it. No fuel drains in the blisters. No gascolators. No valves. No Facet pump. I'll measure the time on idle to drain the blister and make that the minimum pre-takoff running time to check for possible fuel contamination. No need for a transfer pump since running on right tank only will return to left tank and thereby transfer fuel. I have capacitance gauges installed, but I'll also be able to see the sight gauge on the right tank to monitor it. With this system I'll still have my redundancy, but I'll also have simplicity. I wonder what happens when you're running both pumps in a system like this, and one pump runs dry. I'll test that one on the ground. The other thing I'd like to test on the ground is running both pumps, engine idle, with both tanks full to the brim. Will the left tank vent fuel? I've already plumbed the returns to the firewall, so I think I'll T them and install a manual on/off valve to the right side. This way I'll be able to experiment with a "return to both" system at some point down the road. Thoughts anyone...

Jim, Lots of useful and thought provoking input. Thanks. Rather than use a three-way valve with all the potential failute points you mention, I was thinking of using continuous duty, normally open solenoids to switch the returns. Wiring would be fairly simple since they would be switched on the opposite pump switch. Wiring would be for total load, i.e. a pump and a valve. Worst case, a solenoid fails and you're returning to both. I didnt say there's no room for a useable sump in the Cozy. You were asking for 5 gallons because of you're obsession with having that extra couple of pints of fuel when you've burned the rest. Most people with sumps are doing fine with three gallons or less. The Cozy IV hell-hole will accomodate a three gallon tank. I know - I made one. I like the way you describe Tracy's system - one tank is a sump for the other. This makes it sound much better. However, recognizing that fuel starvation is the number 2 cause of accidents after VFR into IRF, I've decided that I want a redundant system. In Tracy's system crud or contamination of the main tank makes the reserve tank inaccessible. You second pump wont help you. Interesting data point on the galcolator, and I like the fuel usage during taxi comment, but I'll measure this (rather than guess) I suppose water could build up in the blister gradually and bite you eventually. Maybe this is another good reason for redundancy. I'm considering putting a drain in each blister anyway. I didnt know about mounting the filter vertically. Thanks. As always... learn a little each day. Regards, and thanks for all the valuable input. John Slade

Hi George, Good to hear from you. When are you coming back over to check out my engine installation? I don't think the presence of a fuel selector has killed anyone. It's not using the fuel selector when needed that kills people Anyway, I'm not installing a fuel selector. Selection will be done by powering one pump or the other. The valve we're talking about is for switching returns. If I remember correctly, you have normally a aspirated carburetor installation. Adding turbo (faster fuel draw) and fuel injection (requires returns) complicates things a little. My current dilema, in case anyone has a comment, is whether or not to fit a gascolator on each fuel line. I have fuel drain points at the front of the strakes, and a course gauze filter in each strake, per plans. There will also be filters between the pumps and the rail. Do I need the additional water trap and filter provided by a gascolator before the pump on each side? Who was it that just bought my gascolator? Wanna sell it back? John Slade

>Who then, other than another Cozy builder, would be able to perform maintenance on my Cozy? I beleive the answer to this is ANY A&P. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Makes sense, Norm. This is exactly what I'm planning to do. So where do I get the valve you're describing? Do you have a supplier or part Number? >You can use the fuel guage contacts on the valve to give you an error signal if the valve should stick ... I don't follow this comment. John

Frank, Purchasing a plane sounds like an interesting approach, but before you dive off and make the commitment, let me offer some negatives... 1. Avionics has progressed a great deal, and will do so more while you build. The average "spam can" (especially the affordable ones) has big, old, heavy "steam powered" instruments which you might not want to put in your Cozy when it's done. Today an EFIS/One will replace all this and much more for $10k. Tomorrow, who knows? You will probably want to wire you're Cozy a la "Aeroelectric Connection" with techniques and equipment much improved over what the certified ships use. In general terms the experimental world allows you improvement and cost alternatives that would be restricted by using parts from a cessna or piper. 2. Looking for an engine suitable for a Cozy will limit you're choices. Once you have the plane, you're alternative will be limited even more. Certified engines are also evolving, albeit slowly, and there might be a nice diesel alternative by the time you're ready. You might wish to consider an automotive option such as the subaru or rotary (both now flying in Cozys). The Mazda is approaching a firewall backward package and should be well proven by the time you're ready for an engine. I'm not sure if the CAA will certify automotive conversions, but if they do this might be an option. 3. Airplanes are expensive in UK. (I'm from Lancashire originally). Taking a flying airplane out of service by removing the engine and instruments will be expensive in terms of value reduction. Perhaps more than the value of the old, used items you remove. 4. Once you have an airplane you'll be tempted to fly rather than build. Your project may be starved of both time and funds. My impression is that you're looking forward to the building for the sake of the building. Building is cheap, at least initially. Buying, owning, storing and maintaining an airplane will divert you from this. This is especially true in UK where the weather often gets in the way of actually flying. With limited funds you could end up in a situation where the spouse is exposed to the costs of certified flying and you're building dream gets shot for good. I agree that you should get some hours and at least get to the point of going solo - then perhaps its decision time - build or fly??? Just another perspective. Regards, John Slade

I saw a Cozy III ready for finishing and avionics for $15k inc. engine recently. Sounded like a good deal. Search the Cozy mail list archives for details.

My first recommendation would be to get you're ticket first, but perhaps a compromise is possible. The plane is going to take you a few years. Given that you're convinced that piloting is for you, I'd dive in and start building on the understanding that you'll get you're ticket along the way, as finances improve. Quite a few builders do this and it seems to work out fine. Worst case you'll end up with a plane you don't know how to fly (yet). You could get a test pilot to do the first flight. Maybe you could find a buddy to fly off the hours and do the inititial testing, then you could get a CFI checked out in your plane and have them teach you in it. My local CFII has already agreed to help me finish off my IFR in my plane. Doing a private license in a Cozy wouldn't be ideal, and I dont think its been done, but I'm sure its doable if you just keep the throttle back and stick to spam can speeds. Chances are you'll divert and get some flying in towards the end of the building process. Once you have a license it doesnt take much to stay current (legally) but it takes a lot more to stay really current. This is even more true if you only have the bare hours it takes to get the license in the first place, so I'd recommend learning very close to the end - right about the time you have to buy an engine >Start to finish, though, getting licensed is looking pretty darn expensive. I see it as one of the more expensive parts of the aircraft. Don't you believe it. Wait till you start looking at the avionics catalogs The beauty of building a Cozy from plans is that you can spread the cost over whatever time it takes. Unfortunately that's not true of learning to fly. Ideally you need to do it all in one shot - i.e. do the American Flyers weekend ground school, then do the flying in one intense session at a good school. This, of course, doesnt prepare you for a round the world trip, but it'll get you to the point where you have a license to learn. If you spread the pilot course over three years it will probably cost you three times as much. Bottom line, I'd suggest that you build now, learn to fly towards the end of the building process, have a test pilot fly the first flight and work with an instructor in the transition. Meanwhile, get to know some pilots in the local EAA squadron. Maybe you'll be able to beg a ride on occasion. Step 1 - get the plans and read, read, read Step 2 - visit some local Cozy projects Step 3 - build yurself a full size airplane Step 4 - worry about step four later... Regards, John Slade PS - Glad you enjoyed the web site.

Jim, I don't see how you're going to get 5 - 6 gallons in the hell hole of a Cozy IV. I'm not using it, but I did make a tank that fits exactly into the accecible part of the hell hole, right up to the back seat. It held 3 gallons. I even lowered the horizontal bulkhead an inch or two and moved the heat duct pipe. The tank doesnt dip down each side into the area where the lower engine mounts are because it would not have been removeable. If you made the entire area into a tank (not a good plan - I think), you might just get 5 gallons. Regards, John

Who's bantering? I'm ordering the stencils.

Very good, Wayne! S'funny cause I was thinking of you just night as I repainted the underside of my strakes. It occurred to me that the Cozy will be all white when seen from below so I ought to paint something there. See: http://www.kgarden.com/cozy/chap25d.htm and search for your name. Regards, John