Jim Sower

Rui, <... dearating the coolant ...> The Mazda community (or any other water cooled community) has their engine, radiator, all plumbing, reservoir, burp tank and everything else all under the cowl. It is relatively easy (certainly possible) to make it so an air bubble anywhere in the system can find its own way into the reservoir. They STILL have problems with air bubbles in the system. Not disolved air - trapped bubbles. I am at a complete loss how you would purge trapped air from a de-ice system with any hope of success, much less reliability. There has to be loops (inverted "U"s) everywhere. Air will accumulate in these loops and there's no practical way to purge it. You will ALWAYS have air in your system, and the more air, the more serious the consequences. <... About leaks ... the simple fix is to put a valve ...> That's after you've determined that there IS a leak. I ignored the shutoff valve part since it's so simple and easy (once you know that you need it). I believe that locating and repairing a leak would far and away the most difficult part. Reread my post about coolant seeping through the foam from here to yonder before it finds a path outside the sandwich where it is visible. You may eventually determine that you HAVE a leak, but you're clueless as to where it is, and have no good way to find out aside from destructive disassembly of your flying surfaces. Even then, how would you repair it? <... worries me most is the delamination issue ...> Delamination is a very serious issue. I've no idea how you might address it. Foam degradation is a related issue. My understanding (from discussions on post curing flying surfaces) is that blue styrofoam begins to melt somewhere between 150 F and 180F (depending on who you are talking to). That is at least 50F too low to support an anti ice system. All of that having been said, is the problem worth solving? If you were able to address ALL of the above issues (I doubt you could solve ANY of them), what would you have? Not much I fear. If I'm not badly mistaken, the very best de-ice technology available is the boot type systems on the turboprop commuter airliners. It's very complex and expensive. It's difficult to use, and works only marginally on a GOOD day. You may have read the reports on the commuter that crashed last year SE of Chicago. Often, when ice is encountered, de-ice boots are inflated too soon or too late. One way creates a hollow chamber inside the ice layer that the boot cycles in and accomplishes nothing. The other (I'm not sure) may break up the ice on the leading edge but leave massive amounts still attached further aft. You need to study de-ice technology very VERY carefully before you decide that you can address this problem at all. The notion that all you have to do is dump some heat into the leading edge region of a flying surface is, I believe, totally bogus. It's Sooooo much easier, safer and more effective to just not go where the problem is. Study up. There's a LOT to learn about de-ice ... Jim S.

John, I'll be brief (will wonders never cease:)) <... He's definately a reactionary ...> Like the Royal Family and the C-A list? I think not, and I'll just have to see you outside if that's your inference :) Like "... likely to react ... energetically ... and joyfully ...) Yeah. That'd be me :) <... best held around a log fire over a couple of beers ...> Now why didn't I think of that??

Rui, OK. Let's take another shot at your de-ice solution. Your idea of lots and lots of small tubes embedded in the leading edge has a lot more merit than my reaction of just a couple of larger tubes (actually, there HAS to be an even number if you are going to return the coolant, which is a really good idea ). John slade has spent a lot of time reading everyone's heoric and often frustrating efforts to purge and keep the trapped air out of their Mazda cooling systems so that you're cooling with coolant and not air. He could probably speak to the matter of purging trapped air out of 400' of capilary tubes embedded in your wing much better than I could. Let's suppose you're flying along in the klag and encounter mild ice. Let's further suppose that some ignorant dumb-ass duck is flying along in the same cloud, no clearance at all, and his poor eyes and ears are iced shut so he doesn't know you're coming. Whack!! Through absolutely no fault of your own, you've opened up your cooling system to the world. At whatever flow your pump can deliver, you're dumping coolant over the side. It's cold and cloudy outside and you're losing coolant like pouring piss out of a boot. What's your next move?? So you get it safely on the ground at East Bumblefuck county airport. Now what do you do? How do you fix this thing? How do you even locate it? If the tube ruptured inside the skin in the foam, and the skin didn't rupture, the coolant has been spreading (at 20 psi - ask John Slade how fluids run through foam) until it finds a place to leak through the skin. Maybe into the atmosphere near the site of the broken tube, maybe into the atmosphere somewhere else, maybe into the cabin, maybe (gawd forbid) into the fuel tank ... Or let's suppose you just hit a crow on a perfectly nice day close to home. You're back at your own hangar/airplane factory safe and sound in maybe 10 or 15 minutes. This is better, but you're still looking at the same repair challenge as out in the boondocks. You have better tools and facilities, but still a rather formidable problem. I'll leave you with that. On to examination of the problem itself. It occurs to me that GA airplanes (virtually) NEVER have de-ice equipment. Not even the half $mil Lancair-IVs. Not even production planes like JFK Jr's that had everything for sale installed. Part 135 carriers (that operate in the troposphere) ALWAYS do. Why might that be? It occurs to me that air carriers HAVE to go. They've committed to their clients/passengers to depart point-A at a certain time and date and arrive at point-B some time after that. They have no choice. They go to great effort and expense to acquire and maintain compex de-ice equipment to that end. We GA folks OTOH have better choices. We don't have to go if we don't like the weather. Ask any grizzled old DC-6 or Convair or even more modern turboprop pilot if he would fly into ice if he had a choice. Keep in mind that these guys do that a LOT and are VERY GOOD at using their stuff to best advantage (BTW, you don't just turn that stuff on and continue the march) and have the best de-ice equipment available to work with. I stand on my statement that if we have it, we'll use it. I seriously question the notion that you CAN de-ice a laminar flow wing to where it will fly. Maybe the leading edges, but what about the rest? And remember, the transports will carry a pretty good load of ice and still fly. Wind tunnel tests I have heard of indicate that enough ice to make a good Tom Collins or Margurita will seriously impair a laminar flow flying surface. All of this leads me to the conclusion that: A) you most likely can't solve this problem in any satisfactory way, and B) if you could, you probably wouldn't want to, given the inadequacy/major shortcomings of even the best solutions in place today. My own solution is to never go anywhere that I even have to maneuver to avoid ice. I don't worry about likelihood or probability of ice. I don't go even where there's a POSSIBILITY of ice. That pretty much thins out my flying opportunities here in the northern tier. That's one big reason we're moving to TN just a soon as we can. Just a theory .... Jim S.

Joe (long seems to be a major defect of mine ...), I don't know you either. I know John Slade and maybe one other guy on the list (and have corresponded with a few more over the years). I know you are not trying to sh*t on me when you give an opinion. I would hope you do not think I am trying to sh*t on you when I give mine. I have discovered over the years that new is not necessarily better. Some new ideas are good, some are not so good, some are plumb awful. The good ones bubble up into reality. The bad ones die quietly (or not so quietly as in the case of the dot bombs:)) If examining a new idea in the light of day and doing the math and a cost/benefit study of some sort is "putting a stake" in somebody's creation, then I am guilty as charged. When I come up with a new idea (which is quite often as a matter of fact), I have some choices to make. I can either examine it for flaws and prepare to defend it on its merits, or just pull it out of my ass, float it to the world and listen with such humility as I can muster while others do my light work (thinking it through) for me. In the latter case, I have several choices: I can agree the critics conclusions that my idea is/was flawed, or I can muster facts to rebut his argument, or I can whine about him dumping on my inspiration. I personally find the first two choices more useful than the last. I prefer to do some preliminary thinking-it-through on my own before floating it. This saves others needless and annoying effort doing my preliminary thinking for me, and spares me the embarrassment of public examination of my numerous brain farts. <... your type of ... is probably why we still have magnetos on certified aircraft engines ...> That is a bad rap. I have NEVER gone that route. I have been 86ed off the C-A forum for speaking out against complacency and bland acceptance of 1940s technology. <... I'm tired of the lets do it this way,because they did it that way yesterday attitude ...> As am I. And I have credentials around this. I would invite your attention to John Slade's web site. Read over his page on "Censorship on the C-A Forum. I am not reactionary. One of the few things that really piss me off are inferences that I am. <... You can develop anything no matter how ridiculous in nature or practical ...> I'm not sure what that means. <... I think we should give encouragement to people who want to step on grounds that never have been walked on before ...> As do I. You evidently missed the first paragraph of my post. NONE of the stuff we are discussing here is new. It might be new to you. I would invite your attention to the second paragraph of my post. <... I firmly believe that failure is one step closer to sucsess ...> As do I. I do not, however, believe we should rush pell-mell into developing every lame, half-assed idea that comes along just because it is NEW (again, I would invite your attention to the dot bombs). I prefer (and this is just my personal opinion) to first examine my new idea, try to determine if it has merit, and abandon it if it has none. I firmly believe that life is too short to spend mine pissing in the wind Joe, I did not drive a stake in the pressurization idea. Mr. Newton did that. I only pointed out the TONS of load it would impart to the cabin structure. I then pointed that all that structural beefing up and redesign would give you the benefit of 18,000 ft cabin altitude at an actual altitude of 22,000 ft (as a matter of fact, 2 psi would give you a somewhat greater differential than 4000') and invited you to draw your own conclusions. Similarly, with the de-ice idea. All I examined it just a little. Nothing detailed, just off the top of my head notions of what would be required to make it happen. Having done that, I again took a look at the possible benefits and some of the possible pitfalls. What we're talking about here is natural laws. I DID NOT INVENT THEM. THEY'RE NOT MY FAULT! Mr. Newton defined them. All I did was study Mr. Newton's scribblings and attempt to explain them to you. Any flaws or unfortunate consequences of YOUR "new" idea is NOT MY FAULT!! At NO time did I make any sweeping unsupported generalities. I NEVER suggested that newness was automatically bad and that we should stick to "tried and true mags and carbs and ...". If your idea has merit, you can surely defend it on its merits. If it has none, and you are lucky, some a**hole like me will save you a LOT of time and effort by pointing that out to you. Best regards, Jim S.

John (this one gets long ...again ...), <RE ... Hold up a minute here, Jim. Lets have some data, rather than wildly screaming "Oh sh.t, we're gonna die" ...> I was clearly exagerating. I have been taking this whole thread as a pretty lighthearted exercise. I also did not state or imply that Rui had a death wish. I was and am playing around and having a little fun with the reappearance of some stuff that makes the rounds every couple of years. Like, EZs and Cozys have been around for over 20 years. We're not plowing new ground here - not with pressurization, not with de-icing, somewhat with turbines. It's pretty much all been said. These ideas periodically just blossom and grow "outside the box" and generate a lot of enthusiasm (but a lot more heat than light) until someone sits down and does the math. The balloon pops and the principals go back to building, and making less dramatic excursions from the plans. It's a pattern, John, and I know you've seen it. But as long as we're here, how about a very quick, cursory look at the math. I believe I mentioned on a recent post that 2 psi pressurization (which will lower the cabin altitude from about 22k all the way down to 18k) will subject the cabin structure to 288 lbs per sqft, or nearly TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED pounds per square yard of surface area. Much of which is concentrated in latches, hinges and windows. Need we go any farther? As to deicing, I would start with some principles of philosophy. I am a strong believer in the human trait that "... if you have it, you'll use it..." applies to de-ice equipment. It follows then, that such equipment would tend strongly to get you INTO one hell of a lot more trouble than it gets you OUT of. It's been my experience that virtually everyone I approach with this type of notion responds with "... but not ME ... I only want it as a backup ...". I regard such responses as sincere and well intended, and TOTAL BULLSHIT. Sort of like buying an SUV so you won't get stuck in the snow, and discovering that you get stuck more than ever, but in more remote, inaccessable paces:) That said, let's move to engineering. Electric de-ice won't fly. For a plane the size of a Cozy, you're talking thousands of watts of heat. Like 5 or 6. That's upwards of 400 amps which production capacity you carry around ALL of the time just in case you need it. Which the fact that you have it kind of assures that you will, at least occasionally (see above). And, of course, moderate (much less serious) ice will defeat it. I'm not aware of ANY electrical de-ice systems that work, but there might be one. As for hot water, one would have to examine carefully how much hot water would be required and determine if even a Mazde, with all its heat rejection problems could provide it. And then weigh all the valves and plumbing and valve actuators and what not. Then move on to structure. The Rutan derivatives use fiberglass foam sandwich construction. Piping hot water inside that sandwich would be a waste of time given the insulating attributes of the sandwich. Piping the water through a hollow D-section of the wing or canard opens up a LOT of engineering issues that nobody on this list - not Nat, not Jeff, not the Swings, not anyone this side of Burt are equipped to address. But suppose you did have the engineering capacity to address them (and weigh all the additional structural gee-gaws). It is my considered opinion that one of the first things you'd discover is that the whole idea has no discernable merit. The downside FAAAAR outweighs the upside. If you could de-ice the leading edges (at great cost, even if you don't count complete structural redesign of the flying surfaces) you would only be transferring the ice from the [heated] leading edge to the [unheated] top (further aft) surface(s) of the wing/canard. You would accomplish very little, if anything, useful. I am reminded of the long and heated (pun intended) discussions a couple of years ago on the C-A list concerning pitot heat. Lots of guys had come up with ideas like automatic engagement of the heat (in case you didn't notice you were icing up), ceramic regions in the nose of their Cozy or Velocity plane that would structurally support a hot pitot probe without damaging the glass and foam, and Etc. etc. etc. It was pointed out in no uncertain terms that by the time your pitot system freezes, your flying surfaces have already iced up to the point that your super-slick fiberglass racing airplane has long since acquired the aerodynamic attributes of a flat river rock. I wondered to one of these "pioneers" why, if he was ballistic, in an unrecoverable dive, he would give a sh*t how fast he was going when he hit the ground. I got no response. I guess he was busy building his ceramic nose cone. Back to philosophy: I firmly believe (I was told by a guy who was talking like he knew) that there is NO system or safety device, no matter how complex or expensive or reliable that can overcome bad judgment and stupidity on the part of a pilot. That right there is, IMO, the crux of this whole matter. We are proposing that one of us is going to design and build just such a device. I think my money would be MUCH better spent on training and related efforts that would KEEP me out of trouble rather than investing it in some hideously expensive gee-gaw that might (or might not) GET me out of trouble that I had blundered into. Just a theory .... Jim S.

Joe, I suppose we could put on a BRS. Of course, with the speed ranges we're talking about with turbines and superchargers, it would have to be at least a two stage system - one maybe 5' - 8' canopy to slow down below 80 kts and a great BIG one to deliver the plane gently to terra firma. Sould only weigh a couple hundred pounds. Rui, I don't have direct experience with icing on composite (Rutan derivative) airplanes. There are folks who do. Most are dead. I took that as a strong message. Known icing only hurts idiots. Folks who fly composits into known icing conditions are candidates for the "Darwin Award". Unknown icing is what kills folks who can read and write and count to twelve (but are still not the brightest candles on the tree). If you read the CPs, you will find that Burt is against going anywhere near even potential ice. He is not nearly as indirect and circumspect as I am in articulating his views on the matter. If you really feel like "thinking outside the box", please be sure and let me know when you get it up and ready to go. I will want to take out an insurance policy on you (I'll even split with your widow). Best of luck .... Jim S. PS Is there a branch of your family named "Knevel"?

Ya'all gotta be kiddin', right?? Just pullin' my chain, right?? Composite airplanes typically have laminar flow airfoils which are more efficient. That's because they can. Other materials can't be built smooth and regular enough for laminar flow, but composites can. Trip the boundary layer, and you've got a different airfoil. The EZs with GU canard typically wouldn't fly right in MIST, let alone rain. Get in a cloud (white, not dark) or sometimes even NEAR one, and you get a nose down trim change from tiny tiny droplets of mist tripping the boundary layer. They had to jump through a lot of hoops to come up with one that would tolerate mist or rain (Roncz). Ice? Fuggedaboudit!! I regard it as suicidal to have anything even remotely to do with ice in a composite airplane. It scares the hell out of me ... and I'm FEARLESS !!! Jim S.

I would guess that at $0.50 per refill, and a small portable bottle should last one max leg at least, that would be much preferable over an O2 generator. O2 generator is a sophisticated mechanism that involves capital expenditure and requires hi-$ maintenance. An O2 bottle is a freaking BOTTLE. One big one, several little ones. Refill big one for pocket change at local welding supply store. Simple, cheap, reliable, all I would evere need. As for pressurization, 2 psi = 288 psf = 2592 lb per sq yd!!! Just a theory .... Jim S.

OK. Yours will have been in place for a spell before I get to that stage. I'll let you be my beta site, and when I'm ready the technology (and probably the price)should be a good bit better. Particularly in light of all the house payment and tax and etc. money I'll be saving when I move back to God's country See -- I can be turned ... it just takes a little time and perseverance Jim S.

I couldn't access the site, but I believe I've seen a similar one recently. IIRC the one I saw produced around 300 hp. Certainly in the case of jets and somewhat more modestly in the case of turboprops is altitude sensitivity. Turboprop would be a lot better at altitude (are we back to pressure again? ) The $27k is about the same as an O-540. Similar fuel burn, lighter weight, order of magnitude better reliability. Climb hard to 20k, cruise at 180 kias (about 270-300 true?). Perhaps you'd have to plumb a couple of external tanks. But 14 gph isn't all that bad if you're making upwards of 250 kts. MPG would be about the same as a rotary. The bucks for engine and prop, at over $35k would kill me ... Jim S.

Only $180! Just connect a couple of wires! I didn't know it was that simple. Of course there's a body of thought that I'm that simple too Let's see. Connect all the the wires to the box. Frontwards. Program the voice commands. Check it out carefully. Don't want to crash trying to correct a canopy latch problem when it's actually the gear not up or down or something The whole thing just strikes me as a gadget for people who have more money than they know how to spend wisely. Guess I'll never catch up with technology or fashon .... Jim S.

The dogs would probably survive just fine with no O2 or pressure if you stayed below the CCA. They don't have demanding crew responsibilities, and the higher you go, the better behaved they get Just a theory .... Jim S.

OK. For my own part, I like simple, inexpensive stuff. If I add power for takeoff (or even to take the runway) and the horn and light go on, I look around. Before too very long, I've checked the landing brake and the canopy and fixed the problem. Power off and horn on, I eventually figure out that it's the nose gear. Monitor girl telling me "... Hey big boy, you might want to put the gear down before you get a lot closer to the runway ..." sounds like fun, and I might play with that stuff if I was Al Wick, but I'd have to learn a whole new skill set to get involved with AI. But more power to ya .... call when it's cheap, simple and off the shelf ... Jim

I personally can't imagine why anyone would feel a NEED for pressurization below 25,000 ft. Nor can I imagine why anyone would want to fly a Cozy in the Flight Levels at all. Oxygen bottles are light, cheap and abundant. Ten cent tail wagging the forty dollar dog again?? .... Jim S.

Wayne, <... NEVER forgotten ... during normal, downwind approaches ...> <... realization that IT CAN HAPPEN, no matter how thorough the training ...> I agree, it CAN happen. On straight in approaches, my distance report includes a gear report ... "five miles, no gear... three miles, no gear ... two miles, gear down". I believe that your problems on straight ins suggests less than thorough training at least as regards gear discipline. I had learned to lump turn-to-base and distance-on-straight-in and all similar reports into a sort of "imminent landing" transmission that ALWAYS includes "gear - ???". Hearing myself report to the world that my gear is UP seems to help. This is the part that takes place driving around in the car thinking. Again, it CAN happen, but there's thorough and then there's THOROUGH. And when all else (even really REALLY THOROUGH) fails, there's alarms... John, The EZ (and I had thought Cozy) had what I thought was a nifty alarm system that connected landing brake, canopy, gear and throttle. High power with either the canopy latch not home, or the landing brake down would sound the alarm. Low power with the gear up would sound the alarm. The alarm included a very audible horn and a prominent red light on the panel. The light (from RS) could be pressed to override the alarm (which could get you into trouble). It worked pretty good for me for the couple of hundred hours I got on my EZ so far. I would look long and hard at what's already in place before I took to reinventing the wheel. Just a theory .... Jim S.

My recommendation would turn on which 3" section of the antenna you cut out ~ end, middle, first? 3" off he end shouldn't hurt much ~ just make it your Nav-2 or something. Your primary is GPS anyway isn't it? ) If it's a critical section, you might want to bury a new antenna under one ply of glass. Now I've already told you more than I know ... Jim

I've heard of them too. It is not clear to me how well they lend themselves to retrofit. Also, $30 per instrument for six or more instruments gets to be a piece of cash. I agree that they're preferable, but not affordable and questionable as retrofit stuff. Jim

<... "finals, three greens", THEN looked to see the gear was up ...> That counts. You TALKED, and you LOOKED as you talked. Sound reflex. Good habit. I've done that too. Times when we hit the 5-G break at 400 kts ++ and couldn't slow down to gear speed (220) by the time we were abeam, I trained myself to hang onto the gear handle so I couldn't transmit to call the 180 until I slowed enough to put it down. Same thing. <... solo student ... heard the three greens call ... couldnt see the wheels ...> He hadn't drilled enough yet. In the Training Comnmand, we used to have [R]unway [D]uty [O]fficer who acted as LSO for solo studs and grade their landings, or a snuff with a flare gun to check studs' gear. We used to say that students were bullet proof ~ they were so far behind the airplane that if it ever DID crash, they wouldn't get hurt. Best .... Jim S.

<... You KNOW what they say about retract pilots..."There are those that have and those that will." ...> I've heard that. I do NOT believe that it's carved in stone. I am lucky that just about the first plane I ever flew was a T-34 and I had NOTHING but retract experience and controlled runways the first 4000 hrs I flew. That's a blessing, and I know it. Anyway, we ALWAYS reported abeam with "... XXX - 180 - gear down ..." or, in other circumstances, "... XXX - 180 - gear down - hook down - fuel state ...". I report "... turning base - gear down ..." in my EZ and check it just as religiously as I did then. From the beginning, when I drive around in my car, I think up what if's and devise bullet proof habit patterns. When I am in ordinary daily operations, I practice them again and again the EXACT same way and drive the habit deep into my subconscious. Then, when things get dicey and I'm distracted, and revert to subconscious habit, I'm OK. If I don't have sound, well drilled habits, and I have to do it consciously, and find myself in distracting situations, I'm very apt to screw up and forget something. I keep my rote habits simple and few and SOLID. That way, my head can focus on the weather or traffic or what not and my hand will get the gear down without help from my head. I don't forget my gear because I don't have to remember it. When I'm downwind, it just happens because I don't know how NOT to put it down. Some discipline, lots of thought, many repetitions .... Jim S.

Ken, It might get more complicated than you would think at first blush. I have a Velocity which has two tandem oil coolers, one on the firewall and one in the nose. The nose unit has an inlet and exhaust, and part of the exhaust plenum is the nose gear mount bulkhead. A duct through that bulkhead "T"s into 1.5" scat tubing that enters the cabin through the bulkhead that the brake pedals mount on. In the summer, I close off the hot air as it enters the cabin and everything's OK. On a hot day, I don't ever get over 180 F on the oil temp. In the winter, with both oil coolers going, oil temps are lower and there's not much hot air coming into the cabin - there's no pressure to push the air into the ducting to the cabin. What I think I'll have to do is make a flapper plate that when "closed" lays up against the bulkhead and covers the ducting into the cabin, and when "open" lays against the belly and closes off the main plenum outlet and forces all air coming out of the cooler into the cabin. The duct to the cabin, having much less capacity will slow flow through the forward cooler, reducing its efficiency while increasing the air temp coming out of the cooler. I may need a similar valve to inhibit flow through the rear cooler to raise the oil temp to 200 deg or more in normal ops. [My] Velocity is seriously overcooled, with big, draggy inlets/exits. I will try and deal with all these issues one day (after I downdraft the engine)... Try and examine ALL of the consequences of your various proposals... Jim S.

I've been doing some research lately on Instrument Panel lights. The guy who built my Velocity made very little effort at panel lighting. Altimeter, airspeed and attitude gyro have "post" lignts in two corners and there's a nearly imperceptable light from the overhead switch bank. That's about it (he was a dedicated VFR Day only pilot). At night, my wife holds a flashlight for me or I hold one in my mouth for such things as RPM, etc. I did some asking around and was informed of all manner of really slick, creative ideas. Most of them best lent themselves to initial installation and were pretty expensive. None were partucularly economical or simple or easy retrofit. At John Slade's suggestion I started investigating LEDs and eventually came up with a dynamite solution. I finally found a parts house that deals in the "Pacer" line (a company in LA) of LED running lights for trucks and pickups. Their part number 20-706 is a "bread loaf" shaped 12V LED cluster about 1/2" x 1/2" x 1-1/4" with five LEDs in a row, pigtail wires and a self adhesive bottom. They come six in a package for about $32. I checked them out and one unit will illuminate at least two adjacent instruments from a distance of about 12", so 3 or 4 max will brighten up the whole panel for me. I need to extend my glare shield back some to prevent the instrument lights I have (and the avionics LEDs) from reflecting in the windshield anyway, so I'll make it come back enough to house these LEDs. My plan is to make 3 or 4 1/2" x 1/2" x 1-1/4" angles out of .025 Al and put the light on one face and velcro on the other. I'll be able to easily attach the lights wherever I wany until I have just the configuration I want and then (if I feel the need) mount them permanently. I can also make one shine down on my knee board. The wires that power them (they're wired in parallel and draw maybe 20 ma/unit)will tie into the current panel light circuit and hide quite nicely under the glare shield. Glare shield is upholstered cardboard so when I have it the way I want, I can make a permanent installation. I'm sending one to John Slade, and he can forward it to anyone who expresses interest Simple, Easy, Economical .... Jim S.

Carrier landings involve a lot more research and study than I've given to this list. To be honest, I hardly ever scroll down at all. All of the posts seem to be in "coffee house" and "general construction". I would have expected fuel system discussion to be in the chapter 21 section. Anyway, the short answer is that I never took the time to master the system. Should do that soon. Jim

How do I do that? When I tried "control panel" I ended up viewing a whole string of off-line emails that I never knew existed. Jim S.

I've been mind f**king the whole retract gear concept for years and years. The core issues, IMO, are cost, complexity, safety, performance and cosmetics. All agree that cosmetics are a no brainer. Retracts are soooo cool! The performance issue is a little stickier. FG enthusiasts insist that you gain well under 10 kts cruise (Nat can get pretty shrill on this particular subject), but there is little or no substance to what they say since there are no retract Cozys. The Velocity retracts seem to get upwards of 10 but probably not more than 20 kts better cruise than the FG models. One could argue that they constitute the best comparison as far as performance goes ~ nearly identical airplanes, one FG, one retract. Nobody has a fair sample of retract Cozys, but there are some in the mill. Cost of a retract package is high, but not prohibitive. If you have an automotive conversion (Mazda for example) the money you save on the engine will buy you a nice retract package. The other factor in cost considerations is maintenance and it is kind of a wild card. You never really know how much maintenence it's going to involve. Most of the people you talk to about it (for Cozys) are either trying to sell you a retract or trying to talk you out of it. You can never be sure of their true agenda. There's no owners to give you the straight skinny. Complexity is also a mixed bag IMO. I don't see how it would be a whole lot more difficult to install than, say, a turbocharged Mazda. The main thing about infinity that spooks me is hanging the gear on the end of the spar carry through. ERacer and Velocity both mount their retracts on fuselage bulkheads, and for very good reason. I haven't yet been satisfied that the outboard end of the spar box is a good place. There is landing impact of course, but the gear being mounted on the forward face of the spar box will give it, along with the bending moment associated with positive G's, a significant "nose up" twisting moment. This, I would guess, might be fairly simple to fix and would require maybe a ply or so of spiral wound uni. OTOH, braking would involve a much larger moment arm, and all the force that the brakes apply to stop the airplane, with a moment arm the length of the gear leg would gendeate a largish "nose down" twist on the spar box. Strakes are only floxed to the spar box, and I would think that they would be in some jeopardy since the joint between strake and spar box would be in tension. But then again, the part in tension is the gear well. Velocity/Eracer type retract system on a Cozy would involve rerouting the aileron and rudder controls out of the retract mechanism area. No rest for the wicked. Retract gear is very much up in the air with me. I'm looking at how SQ2000's do with Infinity retracts. Safety is, IMO, a wash. Airplanes ditching gear up are much less likely to "dig in" and "summersault". OTOH, if you ditch with the nose gear down, it should (key word here) be flexing / bending while the main gear gets wiped out (at which time it will follow suit). The gear breaking off the airplane absorbs a LOT of energy that has to be absorbed somewhere else on a retract. I think it's a wash. Just remember to never ditch a FG with the nose wheel up. Lots of theory for your money .... ) Jim S.

<... Stops the plane running off by itself and ramming a hanger ...> I knew that one was coming before I even started writing. Basically, it saves me from doing something stupid that I [should] know better. 10. Saves having to keep you're feet on the brakes during runup ... Where else would I want them? 9. Makes you feel less rushed during pre takeoff checks ... I doubt it. If I feel rushed, I might tend to skip takeoff checks. If I feel rushed, why would I want to take EXTRA time to set and release a parking brake? 8. Helps you remember what it was like to fly a 172 ... So far, I've never been blessed with nostalgia for a 172 7. Stops the plane moving about the patio when you're working on the back end ... Good idea! And all this time I thought that's why God gave us chocks!! 6. Lets you stop REALLY quickly if you engage it before touch down ... Hadn't ever thought of that. Saw it done with an F9 once (long story ~ for next time we get together ...) 5. Gives you another lever in the cockpit to impress people with ... Another one I hadn't thought of ... 4. Something to scratch you're left knee on during long flights ... And yet another ... 3. more weight at the front. Saves using ballast ... Interestingly enough, I have come up with another much more effective (albiet much less creative) way to not need ballast ... 2. Another place to check for leaks ... That would be my most compelling reason NOT to ... <... and, finally, the number 1 reason for having a parking brake ...> Now that makes sense. Where the hell were you three years ago when I NEEDED that idea ... REALLY BAD ...