Jim Sower

Chuck, I'd be interested in renting them too. Perhaps after John's done with them. You might have a nice little business starting here.

I agree with most of what Wayne says. I would put my water drain in the sump (making sure there is a distinct low spot in the sump to put it in). The fuel is "sucked" out the top of the sump and outlet line cheats 1/4"-1/2" off the bottom. I'm not sure about coarse fllters upstream of the fuel pump. It would have to be pretty damn coarse, and transparent (so I could check it regularly) to suit me. If I had one, I would want inlet pressure at the pump to monitor it's status, and that greatly complicates wiring, instrumentation etc. I have no problem with all return fuel going to the same tank. My design entails both wings gravity feeding into the sump, parallel, checked electric pump/filters drawing from the sump and supplying the rail, return only to the right tank. I would have a Facet pump to transfer from the left tank to the right as required and to ensure late in the flight that every drop of fuel I own is in the "selected" tank. No valves at all for fuel management. I would have maintenance shut-off and perhaps a main shut-off (at sump outlet) that would be electrically closed and fail open.

What I've seen most commonly is a lever device consisting of angle iron welded together (ain't you glad you have that TIG machine) in such a way as to have support at one end, scale at the other and the weight of the airplane more or less precisely in the middle. A digital bathroom scale will then give you up to 600 lbs at 1# granularity with whatever accuracy it has (which I would guess is about +,-1%). I guess that's accurate enough, particularly since errors in the instrument would be consistant across the weight range that's important to us. I have been looking for an accurate balance scale less than 3' tall and come up empty so far. I can give you details of what I've seen if you like.

<... Have you started making parts yet ...> Yes and no. Quite a few parts for my Velocity, quite a few less for the Cozy. My wife insists that the airplane that flies take precidence over the one that's much more of a gleam in my eye. I can't fault her for that. I'm in the final stages of 2- or 3-weeks of steady work (preceeded by a couple of months of sporadic maintenance) on my Velocity and will move the Cozy project and support equipment from the hangar to the [heated] basement and make the tub (at least) over the winter.

My table is fairly elaborate but cheap and easy to build. I made a 1'x4'x8' box and another 1x4x4 out of 1/2" plywood, floxed together using outdated epoxy and 2x2 fillets ripped at 45 deg. There is a cross bulkhead every 2'. I cut holes to make storage compartments inside the box structure. Electrical outlets are part of the box and it plugs into the wall. It's rigid as all hell, cannot warp or twist and is as flat as the surface you build it on. As a disposable working surface I'm using a sheet of that cheap 1/4" plywood that is used for door skins - I forget the actual name. The box is affordable, reasonably portable and suits my purpose quite well. I sit it on a support made of 2x4s with legs on 4' centers. For epoxy storage, I went to the dump and picked up a thrown away dormitory refigerator. I installed a 50 watt bulb switched by a thermostat I already had, but an attic fan controller from HD would work great. As a bonus, I stripped out the compressor (which is sealed with its motor) and I have a great vacuum pump. Like killing two birds with one stone. I control the vacuum (anything over 10" - 15" will result in a dry layup) with an accumulator between the pump and the part. I use a pickel jar with inlet, outlet, vacuum guage nipples and a little needle valve from a model airplane engine as a calibrated leak. Over engineering/designing is great fun, but a shop that costs more than the airplane seems to defeat the purpose of something or other ... Jim S.

<... I paid $0.20 per pound for the salvage lead, ...> Where can you get lead for that price? I looked and looked and couldn't find any at ANY price. Finally got maybe 20# from a tire dealer. Inquiring minds need to know ... Jim S.

<... you would want to be fairly low on gas before filling up with the different ...> I can't imagine why. I've been burning a mixture of Avgas and hi-test mogas in my IO-360. It's major heresy in the conventional wisdom to use mogas in any injected engine, but I didn't hear any actual easons for this that sounded more rational than religious. I mix about half and half so as to retain some lead for the valve seats (yes, I know that sounds less rational and more religious), and I put a little 2-stroke oil in the mix as top lube to keep rings, valves, valve guides working. I don't have any hard evidence for 2-stroke top oil doing any good OR the mogas doing any harm. I've only been this for around 50-75 hrs, but it's been good so far. The difference in price is about $1.00 or more per gal, which for me is $13 $15 per hour. Mixing saves me $5 - $7 per hour on average. That's significant for me. I'll more and better information as time goes on.

Test111, <... What about the smart plugs? Don't they let you burn all types of fuels? ...> If they work and become available, smart plugs will revolutionize a lot of things. Like, we'll be seeing nearly all of the auto conversions converting to Diesel/Jet-A. I am a true believer at this juncture, but skeptical that they will be available in my lifetime. Sort of like being a Zorche (or Red Sox) fan. I went to a couple of their seminars and checked out their web site, and concluded that they are looking more to sell their patent than distribute a product. I've been wrong before, but that's my feeling on those guys. But it would be nice .... Jim S.

<... why doesn't my lawn mower blow up when I fill it's plastic tank ...> Fair question. How much do you use your lawn mower in winter? Actually, It might have a lot more to do with how long it takes to put how much fuel in the lawn mower. I have 20 hp garden tractor that only takes a couple of gals. The humidity seems to have a lot to do with it too. Going back to grammar school, the glass rod-silk scarf trick didn't work some days, and the spark as you walk across a room and grab a door knob only works under ideal circumstances. Besides all that, you need a combustible mixture - better than 16:1 or 18:1. The fumes that knock you out if you put your nose in a gas tank are about 30:1 or better. Bottom line: there's lots of conditions that have to be met and that makes the odds small. The stories about Piper Cubs blowing up only mention the one that DID. The studies and anecdotes obviously ignore the thousands that did NOT blow.

<... but in every example given, the moment the difference of potential comes in contact with each other, there should be a spark ...> Difference of potential is key here. In the vast majority of situations there is none. Static buildup is caused by the act of fueling - the fuel leaving the nozzle. Prior to actually pumping fuel, there is no potential difference betweed the car and the nozzle. During fueling, they are connected and the nozzle is grounded so none can develop. Between fueling operations, the pump doesn't develop a charge, and neither does the car. Airplanes are the same. Problem is that plastic airplanes are not so simple to ground, and if you attempt to ground them in the common sites (engine or landing gear) there is no electrical path from the fuel leaving the nozzle and the ground cable. Also, the stories flying around invariably involve fueling with plastic jugs because a) static electricity forms more readily pouring fuel from a plastic container than a metal one (hose), and b) if the container, filler neck and fuel in the tank are not electrically connected, a charge can develop ie. how do you ground a plastic container. Remember grammer school? Creating a spark by running a comb through your hair does not work with a metal comb (nor on damp days). The glass and silk expirements we did in grammar school all involved rubbing two insulators together. That's why we have to be more careful with plastic fuel cans and plastic airplanes.

I have my gas cap retainer plate chained to the cap, and a foot more chain dangling from the retainer plate into the bottom of the tank. I connect the 100LL ground to the retainer chain. If I'm loading mogas out of plastic jugs, I have to ground the gas IN THE JUG to the airframe. I do that by wrapping Al foil or 14 ga copper wire around the outside of one filler spout with a wire going around the end of the spout and up the inside of it. It seems it's the fuel flowing through the plastic filler line and through the air that generates the static charge - particularly on very dry(?) (winter?) days. I connect all the components (fuel, filler tube, filler neck, fuel in tank, fuel pouring, etc.) to neutralize the charge. I ground the retainer chain to the hangar frame. I came up with this after a thread a couple of years ago that seemed to last for weeks. Lots of folks who knew, lots of folks willing to tell you more than they knew, lots of superstition and black magic, but I finally came up with something that I think will work and that I'm comfortable with. The subject probably isn't worth this much verbage ... Jim S.

<... respect to the periferals, perhaps. If the engine croaks internally I'd probably just ...> Actually, that was what I was talking about. There's no reason for anyone to do the internals, although folks talk as if a Mazda is really REALLY simple and easy to do - once you've done one I'll be able to speak to that later on ... Jim S.

<... UNEMOTIONAL, tangible pros and cons on engine choices ...> That's a TAAAAAALL order, my friend <... I don't know squat about engines ...> You didn't know squat about building plastic airplanes when you bought your plans. You learn as you go. Same with engines. A minor issue IMO I have been following the engine discussions (both religious and rational) for several years. As to your specific questions: 1) No airframe mods of any consequence. Fuel plumbing is relatively trivial (ask John S). Firewall (mount pads) don't seem to be a biggie. 2) Pretty much any engine can use autogas. I mix half autogas in my IO-360 (autogas in injected certified engines is regarded as major heresy - but for reasons that seem much more religious than rational). It's your engine. Burn moonshine if you want. Most Lycs (like mine) will cease to be certified if you burn autogas, but why do you care? If you do get a Lyc (or XP), you're going to run it out. If you sell it, it will re-certify when it's rebuilt. Virtually all auto engines can burn 100LL, but it's bad for them (lead deposits, etc). 3) You will learn a LOT about whatever engine you choose. Even if you don't learn enough to do ALL the work yourself, you'll still know a LOT. You will find that auto engines are DRAMATICALLY more economical to maintain (I recently posted a quick and dirty comparison on the Cozy list). They are also better built on account of they're water cooled (read uniform cooling) - an order of magnitude closer tolerances, etc that make for far superior reliability and engine life. From the 70s until the 90s, auto engine life expectancy has increased from under 100k mi to something on the order of half a million. Thank CNC mills and EFI. 4) It's MUCH easier and MUCH cheaper to hang a turbo on an auto engine than a Lyc. Turbo'd auto engines are probably a LOT more reliable than turbo'd Lycs. 5. Trivial. If you're very cautious, you might want to spring a bundle for a backup alternator on the vacuum pump pad. I can't see that passing a cost-benefit examination, but it's a value judgement. All electric is GOOD. Vacuum pumps SUCK (pun intended) - they fail like Chicagoans vote - early and often. 6. XP-O-360: To "expensive repairs" add "excessive" Auto engine: Smaller knowlege base will be much larger by the time you need to make a decision; Huge deviation from plans will turn out to be relatively trivial - custom cowl is certainly trivial - ask John S; You won't need nearly as many repairs as O-360, and for a fraction of the differential in cost for a particular incident, you can get the local ??? mechanic to make a service call. For the most part, you'll be doing repairs yourself - trust me on that - you'll be competent and confident; Gas is a relatively trivial issue - I have (4) 5-gal cans that fit nicely in the trunk of the car. I grin like my face will break every time I fill up for about 2/3 what avgas would cost (> $40 per fill-up savings). Fueling and grounding procedures are an issue (at least in the winter when it's particularly dry). Read up on that in the archives (be warned - there's a lot of folks will tell you a lot more than they know on this issue). I aim to get a small trailer with a 50-gal tank, electric pump, actual nozzle, quantity pumped and all the trimmings. Expect to pay for it in maybe 10 tank fulls (less than one summer). Auto gas is not as common at airports as it was 15-20 yrs ago, but it's there if you look. Things that wash: You've got that pretty much nailed. Things missing: We ALL are missing stuff. Good news is that you have quite a while to study up and make an informed decision. Don't commit to ANYTHING until you absolutely HAVE to. Keep on listening and learning and make YOUR decision for YOUR reasons. Just a theory ... Jim S.

I stand corrected. I thought Steve was a pretty good source. I don't think I misunderstood him, but I have to entertain that possibility. In retrospect, it did sound out of character for Greg. Guess I need to think these rumors through and verify better before I "publish". I'll be much more careful in future. <<seriously blushing>> Jim S.

Exactly. I'm sure the failures weren't related to the mechanicals (engine, PSRU), but ancillary systems (fuel, ignition, etc.) but I don't have any specifics. You've got to understand - I've already told you more than I know, and there is the possibility (though I think it's remote) that I'm talking out of school. I'll try and get some more reliable info from Steve as soon as I can. Don't know but what I've missed this month's EAA meeting but I'll check with him tomorrow.

I was talking to Steve Wright at RR last weekend, asking him why Greg gave up on his rotary. Steve said that Greg had a couple of dicey failures that seemed to have spooked him. Said "... he didn't trust it any more ..." which can mean different things to different people. BTW, how fast had Greg gone in his Cozy? I didn't keep up with it well at all, assuming that when he got it all squared away he would publish an article in KitPlanes or Sport Aviation or something like that. I also talked to Turbo Tom last weekend (who seems to have been involved to some extent in Greg's development effort), and he expressed disappointment that Greg hasn't said a word to his knowledge. I should be in contact with Steve again soon - I'm going to join the EAA chapter he's in - and I'll see what I can come up with by way of details.

No4, I was a bit harder on you than was necessary or appropriate. When I read your post, I was coming off one of those "bad hair days" and lost my cool. My apologies. As to your science, it is somewhat incomplete and often missing supportable values for some critical parameters (most notably, power available at altitude). Your equations like power = thrust * speed are true enough, but some of your projections might be best described as "a bit fuzzy". Everyone on this list is long since aware of the science you quote. My introduction to to the entry level aerodynamic principles you allude to was in my high school physics class nearly 50 years ago. Sadly, there is a bit more to it than that. A lot of your projections play fast and loose to some extent or other from the constraints of Newtonian physics or practical applications. Some of them, like "climb to some severe height to make 90 indicated equal 270 knots true" make one wonder where you get your atmospheric information. Others, such as "I'd imagine it's not going to be worse than the already excellent 2500 feet per minute ... Climb rate decreases with altitude, so give 20 minutes for the climb to FL250 ???" ignores a good deal of the "science" you qoute earlier, as well as the climb data in the CAFE report you referred me to (which I, and most of the rest of us, had read several years ago). You regularly ignore or significantly understate the power lapse a reciprocating engine suffers with increases in altitude. I saw no reference at all to the "overhead" or power absorbed by the process of turbocharging a reciprocating engine. You often lose the distinction between IAS and TAS, particularly when discussing props. There is no mention at all of Mach Number associated with propeller tip speeds at altitude. Your projection that "$10,000 on motor = + 100 knots" is, of course, utter nonsense. Your statement that ... <... I think you will find that it is the power to weight ratio that controls top speed ...> is not news to anyone that I know, and your ... Some interesting propeller driven figures ATR-72 4000hp -20000kg-5kg/hp=250ktas Bae Jetstream 2250hp-9000kg-4kg/hp=300ktas Fairchild Metro-1500hp-7000kg-4.6kg/hp=300ktas Beech King Air-1500hp-6500kg-4.3kg/hp=300ktas Beech Starship-1800hp-6500kg-3.6kg/hp=300ktas ... are interesting (to me) only to the extent that they are relevant. I'm not up to snuff on cabin class twins, so maybe you can help me out ... which of the planes on your list have reciprocating engines, and which have fixed pitch props? My Cozy TurboDiesel-300hp-1000kg-3kg/hp=300ktas in 2005 and you can eat my Kero fumes if you don't believe it. Perhaps I can be forgiven if I take a "wait and see" attitude on that one ... like I'll believe it when I see it. You see, some very good engineers with lots of money have tried to get 300 kts out of a Cozy, and s far as I know, none have succeeded (with the possible exception of Greg Richter, who recently abandoned his turbo rotary power plant for safety and reliability reasons). Your inference that a newbie off the street, with a slide rule and a very rudimentary knowlege of physics and aerodynamics can achieve this goal with off the shelf parts (that have no extensive documentation on their performance) implies that all of the rest of us, who have been trying for years to go 300 kts, are some kind of doofus neanderthals. I wish you well. If you can do it, so can many of the rest of us (one of which is me). We will all benefit from your triumph. I'll have to put my money on the folks who are a little more well read and experienced. I'll just have to take my chances on the kero fumes.

No4, That's all very nice. Excellent thumbnail sketch of a basic aerodynamic text. Much of that theory many of us were aware of when we were building models as a kid. Most of the rest involves high school level physics. Trouble is, it contains about disturbing number "if"'s and "average"'s that you made no attempt to resolve, until the end when you blythly assigned values that you cannot support with any kind of factual documentation. IF we could specifically quantify the if's and average's that you state, we would all know everyting and life would be perfect. If you can resolve some of these, I've no doubt you will be in great demand as a consultant. Such as: <... Horsepower = Thrust * True Airspeed ...> Well, Duuuuuhh! Now if we only knew exactly what our thrust was .... <... If you know your engine break horsepower ...> HS physics again. Also, it's "brake" horsepower, and none of us know it (with any acceptable accuracy). We do know what the engine manufacturer's marketing folks claim, but we are clueless as to the actual output of our own engine in it's current state of wear. None of us owns a dyno, and nothing short of that will do. <... on average are 75% efficient ...> Does "on average" mean? Between 70% and 80%? Or between 65% and 85%? Or what? And how, precisely, do I determine where in that range my personal prop lies. Perhaps my prop is 85% efficient ... but then again, perhaps it's only 65% efficient ... but then again, guessing wrong between those two figures within the range only introduces an error of 30%, and that's pretty close <... Thrust Horsepower = Break (read "brake") Horsepower * 0.75...> True. My HS physics notes confirm this is so. <... If you have a set of figures for your Lift/Drag ratio at an Indicated Airspeed ...> And where, would you suggest, might I obtain such a set of figures for MY Cozy (with the obvious caveat that John's or Dust's or whose ever Cozy will have different figures from my Cozy)? <... a lift drag ratio of 10:1 must require ...> Wonderful. Now we're getting somewhere. What might be the L/D of my Cozy? While you're at it, grab the figures for Jonh's and Dust's. I'm sure they want to know too. <... So if you know your horsepower ...> Which or course we don't ... <... divide it by your thrust ...> Which, absent accurate knowlege of horsepower and prop effeciency, we have no way of knowing ... <... they are 2200lbs max take off, and 220mph cruise at 75% power, with an 0-380 180bhp ...> So now, all we have to do is poll the owners of flying Cozys to determine how many (if any) actually achieve this level of performance ... and establish how, exactly, they determined that they were at 75% power ... <... _IF_ you are 1650 lbs heavy and _IF_ making 220 mph, _IF_ using 75% power, you have a lift drag ratio of 10:1 ... but IF you don't know your power, none of this means anything at all. <... you have to climb to some severe height to make 90 indicated equal 270 knots true ...> Something upwards of 60,000' as I recall (incidentally, blood at 98F boils at about 55,000' - something to consider) ... <... Props can't go much past 300 kts due to transonic flow on the blade tips ...> Unless you're a reno racer, in which case you can go about half again that fast ... <... More horsepower? Why not? How fast do you want ... snip ... it will use 38 kg an hour Jet A1, or about 50 litres per hour. ...> A lot of unsupported numbers here passed off as fact ... <... You can calculate the rate of climb, using sin angle of climb times weight added to thrust required for straight and level ...> Fantastic!! Just like my HS physics class. In the quiz, the teacher gave us the thrust required and the angle of climb ... what exactly are those items for my Cozy (Oh, and John's and Dust's ...) <... I'd imagine it's not going to be worse than the already excellent 2500 feet per minute ...> "Imagine" being the key word here .... <... so give 20 minutes for the climb to FL250 ...> In another life, I flew tactical jets. Those fighters would make FL250 in 20 minutes. Even less! I gotta' see the Cozy that does that. Cozy making 10,000' in 20 minutes it pretty good. But 10,000 instead of 25,000 '? Then again, perhaps that's within your margin of error ... <... average speed 270 knots ...> That's a damn fine average. About 100 kts better than anyone I have met. <... That's as fast as you can go without losing prop efficiency ...> Where did that come from? <... and so really having to pile on the horsepower...> From where do we get this pile of hp? <... It is achievable with hp alone ...> IS it now? <... why make it hard and change everything else? I'll need some supporting documentation on these: $10,000 on csu = + 15 knots ... beg pardon ?... $10,000 on motor = + 100 knots ... in your dreams ... Actual tests and experience suggest that, on a given system (someone's particular Cozy) the relationship between increased horsepower and speed gain is a cube root function. Like, suppose you have a really marvelous airplane, like a Long-EZ that will make 200 kts on 200 hp (a Long-EZ might, a Cozy never could). Now, suppose you increase hp by 50% (to 300 hp) ... You can expect an increase of speed factor of about 1.5^1/3 or about 1.14 which works out to about 228 kts. We can expect to see a 14% gain in speed for our investment in a 50% gain in power (and, of course, fuel burn). To coin a phrase ... the devil is in the details ... or, perhaps more appropriately, ... if wishes were horses, beggers would ride ... An at least nodding acquaintence with Mr. Newton would help too ... Jim S

I'm not sure where you're coming from or where your figures come from ... ?? <... 110 metres per second is 220 ish knots is 230 mph ...> 220 kts is about 253 mph. <... Thats at 8000 feet and matches the official figures ...> Which official figures from which official? <... Up higher you can get closer to your best rate of climb speed (best lift drag ratio), and it could be worth another 50 knots ...> I thought best L/D speed is 80 or 90 kts. Where does this "another 50 knots" come from? What speed did you start at to approach best climb speed as you got higher? <... Thats it, doesn't matter if you can make 40,000 feet you'll never go faster, unless you can reduce drag ...> Never go faster than what? What about adding power? <... and the only way to do that is maintain best rate of climb ...> I'm completely lost now. What in the world are you talking about? <... but all ready the Cozy's on the limit....> The limit of what?? <... rpm of lycoming at FL250 altitude 75% setting is maybe 2500 rpm ...> How in hell on earth are you going to get 75% power at FL250?? WOT at about 8,000' is 75% power. WOT at about 18,000' is 50% power. At FL250 you'd need about 20" (about 10 psi) of boost to get 75% power. <... the speeds the Cozy fly's at the decrease in drag might give a only a few more knots ...> How many is "a few"? Ten kts? Fifteen? I'm really not sure where you're trying to go with all of this, but there's a bunch of little things left out of the math, and some rather sweeping, unsupported generalities there. Could you be a little more specific on some of these points? Having trouble figuring out what you're talking about

A constant speed prop sounds ideal but would be waaaay too expensive and probably too heavy. IVO is pretty much the only adjustable available and I have enough troubles without worrying about shedding blades or constantly maintaining the prop. I haven't gotten all that far in the design yet, but Greg Richter and John Slade both use performance props. I need to talk to Richter about how his worked out, and wait until John gets flying and see what his does. There will be lots and LOTS of progress in these areas long before either one of us needs to make a final decision.

Ivo has a VERY bad name in the canard community - some of it deserved and some of it not. The basic problem has to do with shedding blades. Basically, the blades are not structurally connected to each other. Each blade has two bolts holding it on the airplane, and there is a gap (however small) between adjacent blades. This is a fundamentally shaky situation, that can be alleviated (if not eliminated) by meticulous and frequent torquing of the blades. To monitor blade relative movement, there is a piece of tape across the interblade gap of each blade that is to be inspected on preflight. If the tape is broken, the prop is hard down until the PROBLEM that CAUSED the tape to break (the blades to separate) is corrected. The serious problems (as in accidents) have all occurred on O-360 engines that are notorious for vibration and torque reversal. These conditions are much reduced on a 6-banger, and virtually nonexistant on a rotary with redrive. Pusher applications involve much more flexing than tractor applications The most infamous fatal accident involved a Velocity that had the pitch motor run away to full coarse pitch. The guy field stripped the prop, disconnected the motor, ground adjusted the prop to fine (T/O and climb) pitch [improperly I hear], reinstalled it [improperly I hear], torqued it [improperly I hear, or not at all] and launched on a longish (three hour or so) flight at night. The prop shed a blade and he and his family were killed. There is no doubt that he was flying on instruments (in the sense that there's no visual reference to the horizon when you have your head up your ass...) but the fact remains that a Performance or Catto prop CANNOT shed a blade unless you break it by passing a large, structural object (a Catto prop has survived the shedding of the lower cowl of a Long-EZ) going throuh it. The design is fundamentally delicate. This can be Compensated for, but I personally would prefer a product that doesn't require so much compensation. From a performance perspective, it is pretty marginal as a "variable pitch" prop since only the outboard portion of the blade (that is physically twisted by a torque rod driven by the electric motor) changes pitch. At high/course (cruise) pitch, the inboard portion of the blade can have zero (unproductive) or even negative (counterproductive) AOA. The "magnum" prop is aleged to reduce this effect, but it's still there even if it is less prominent. At this juncture, I plan to fly my rotary Cozy with the Catto prop from hell - very wide chord and pitched from here to yonder. Just a theory ... Jim S.

Are there any plans to turbocharge the Delta Hawk? 180 HP for a NA engine would go to over 200 without much boost and could be turbo normalized to 15k' - 18k'. Now THAT would be nice. Horrendous load on the bottom end (as is the case on all diesels) but still simpler than Lycosaurus. Is Delta Hawk 2-stroke or 4-stroke? I've never paid that much attention since Zorsch (or whoever) promised production models for 1990 that never appeared (that was like 13 years ago, and they're still at all the fly ins promising next year).

MT, The sagging Dragonfly is well known. As you said, it had wheels at the wing tips and all the weight putting the spar caps in compression (pretty much as if he was pulling 1 G in flight). It was the heat and [low?]Tg that did him in. A Cozy retract OTOH would be loading the spar box, not the wing. Further, you have epoxy available that has better Tg than that Dragonfly (the expensive MGS). Also, the spar box lends itself to strenuous post cure. If you checked out the temp limits of the foam used (it's NOT wing core foam) you might find that you could "bake" it to a pretty high temp. In any event, shaped like it is, you could put it in the sun under a black plastic "tent" with a thermostat controlled fan to ventilate it. You could also cut your spar box just a tad deeper and beef up the spar cap a couple of laminations of tape. And wrap the box with a couple of opposite wound spirals of Uni. All told, it's probably a non issue, and more than adequate compensation is readily available. As to performance, a turbo 13B would have to be over propped from here to yonder (or have a CS unit) This is because if you turbo normalize to 15k', you'll be making 250-300 kts true which will require a a prop pitched at about 150" or so. Your performance envelope would be so wide as to make for a totally TOTALLY stalled prop on T/O but a plane that would HOWL at altitude. As for KLS, I haven't heard from Stan for a while so I don't know. The Q2000 part of the opertion seemed to be a little thin, but he's building a sort of Maule(?) STOL heavy hauler for missionarys and the like that operate in primitive places. I'm nowhere near mounting the gear yet. Particularly as regards finances. Got plenty of time in that department before I have to make a firm decision.

MT, Phil Johnson's web page does indeed make the most thorough and rational case for RG. Saves a lot of fuss and bother when someone gets all shrill and starts spouting unsupportable numbers to just refer him to the link. Nat has a penchant for exageration and fuzzy extrapolation when the subject comes up (understandable given his agende - liability and all). I have heard lots of rumors around delivery problems with Infinity. I know the manufacturer of Q2000. I'll touch base with him and see what he has to say about that. For my own part, I aim to go with Infinity and Mazda turbo 13B. The naysayers exagerate shamelessly and have no valid data to back up their claims of marginal advantage. Truth be told, there aren't many data points. Velocity has a lot, but how exactly to apply that data to Cozys is an open question. Time will tell. In any event, I aim to be one of those data points.

I saw MT's picture in Nat's plane. Unless he is profoundly pear-shaped (not visible below the longerons) I'd guess he'd be OK with a couple of inches wider. I'm 6'3", 250#. long torso. I sat in Slade's airplane and was only mildly uncomfortable; most of that was through the shoulders and my head too close to the canopy. I intend to add 2" to the width of the airplane stem to stern and "steal" two more internally using the console modifications John has already outlined. Adding the width at the front seat and tapering to the nose and firewall would involve redesigning the fuselage side jigs for a different taper than the design has and would result in scads of other "unintended consequences". A straight increase in width would involve adding 2" to EVERY bulkhead, the main spar and canard. That's about it. I worried a great deal that the extra width would amount to unacceptable additional masking of the prop, but John pointed out that since I will have no cowl cheeks, the worst I could do with 2" wider tub was break even with the prop masking from Lycosaurus cowl cheeks. I also aim to lengthen the nose ala' long-nosed EZs. Aside from widening the tub, 3" - 4" inches of shoulder (and head) room can be gained by widening the canopy from the design shape so that it goes pretty much straight up from the fuselage side and doesn't start curving inboard until it is several inches above the rails. That changes the current canopy, which was intended to be strictly a from the neck up instalation to one that can accomodate shoulders. This will also marginally increase the flat plate drag, but not nearly as much as what I will gain with retractable main mounts. I would expect my cruise drag to be the same as or perhaps just a tad less than that of a box-stock plane, but I will be getting MUCH more power at altitude from a turbo normalized 13B. Expect to cruise at around 15k' - 18k' at something in the vicinity of 250-300 kts. Now all I need to do is subdue mouth running and focus on building .... Jim S.