niceez

See what I mean! You won't take advise not even from someone who has put 11 planes through amateur construction and certification process. Why don't you call your local FSDO office for help on this subject. I know it's enough for me.

I used to correct and write regulations for the USAF so I had to become familiar with the government ways of doing this. Biggest problem with the FAR's is a single subject can be spread over so many sub-chapters.... They really need to be reorganized. Problem is we have different kinds (if you will) of aviation. As such there are different rules for those individual catagories and often one catagory will be applied to the other. (Mistakenly of course). For our concern we have to focus on everything the falls into Experimental catagory. We are allowed to use certified equipment in our aircraft. However, the equipment -such as the engine- is not a certified installation for use in our aircraft. I wish I had the time to quote the exact regulation to you but if I did that, it seems no matter how correct you are there is always someone out there ready to "pee in your Wheaties" so to speak. Try this instead; Go ask Lycoming or Continental what the extent of work a homebuilder with no powerplant rating can do to his engine before they will consider it as needing to be factory rebuilt before returning to the Standard aircraft catagory as airworthy. My thoughts are, you will be astonished. Your have assumed correctly in the value of an engine going way down with no "P" sign off. Most engines (including mine) are worth very little until rebuilt by Lycoming or the man with the "P" rating. Ask yourself if your willing to pay top dollar for an engine with logs that have been maintained by a homebuilder with no A&P rating for the last 1000 hours. They're many homebuilders out there that do a much better job of maintaining an engine then an A&P has time to do but unfortunately, the FAA nor the Engine manufactures see it that way. I think the moderator for C-A was also in engine design for the auto industry. I have to chuckle at what he is thinking when people offer up idea's about different fuels and oils in aircraft engines. All I can say is there is a lot more then meets the eye. Using your computor to copy and paste you find it easier to make your own book of what is and is not legal with amatuer building and maintanenece.

>> Scott's comment -- Per the FAR's the "owner" of an experimetal aircraft may perform any maintanence major and minor, any modifications major and minor. And all this may be done with no notification or approval from the FAA. Its in the regulations. <<< Until the owners starts to work on the certified engine (If it is certified). Then the data plate is to be removed - Per the FAR's. We have may liberties in this area. My ex-hanger partner still does his maintanence on his purchased VEZ and LEZ. Never wanting to do it the right way, always the quick way because as he puts it, "I bought this thing to fly - not to work on!" You might guess my feelings..... and why his aircraft is no longer in my hanger. Polite people are welcome here too!

Fort Hood Texas..... A good place to be From I used to be a professional builder. The FAA does not like us building planes for people - Period. Capital gain is not the idea as stated in the FAR's for homebuilts. After building professionally I must tell you what I have come away with and I am sorry if this seems a little tough but, consider how my oppinion became this way! 1.) If you didn't build it, you don't deserve to fly it. (95% of the time) 2.) Builders of airplanes are very different then buyers of airplanes. (95% of the time) 3.) You create a mountain of legal ramifications becoming the manufacturer of a homebuilt airplane. (100% of the time) 4.) I would rather be with a builder/pilot then a buyer/pilot any day. (100% of the time) They are very different people. Repairing for a builder to me is okay or marketing parts or props is also okay. But trying to build an airplane for a person that have more money then sense is a tough row to hoe. Wasn't meant to offend anyone..... rather just enlighten. My current thinking is this; If you have more money then time, buying a certified airplane is the correct answer. If you really enjoy learning and like the mechanical experience and the problem solving of building then homebuilts are for you. Homebuilders are a special breed of people from whom I continue to learn from. - Dale

I have to agree about fly first and build later. Here is some thoughts to share..... Not all people are pilot material.... They're much fewer "pilots" with pilot licenses then they're "people" with pilot licenses. You need to evaluate your abilities and then decide. One thing you can do to assist in saving money buying your materials is to buy an airplane that has the engine you want amoung all the other things aiplanes need. It will also teach what tpo expect from the engine when you are flying. You also now have something to fly while your building and continue to learn about the maintenance that is required and the "how-to" of maintenance. By now you'll also know if you have what it takes to build an airplane. After all if your wife won't support you in buying one there's a slim chance she will support you in building you. The plane to get your flight instruction in further saving money on rental fees. And if worse comes to worse it can be sold. I have seen many divorce's due to building airplanes and can tell you that if I would not have been single when I built mine it would have taken 8 to 10 years to complete it with all the "daddy duties that go along with raising children. With children now, even time for flying it is tough, (well, that is if you are spending enough time with your kids and I suppose it depends on how many you have too). Not trying to scare you off -- Just want you to know thee is a price and the other contributors have given you GREAT advise as I see it. -Dale

If anyone needs a prop balanced.... I would be happy to do it for you for $25.00 (Two bladed propellers only)and FOB (Frieght on Buyer)... If it needs indepth work I would call. Or if you live close enough, just fly in. It takes about an hour to check it in all phases of rotation. I built one this spring and really like having smooth props. One thing I have found is that there is more to it then meets the eye. - Dale

Frank, Yes you can do light aerobatics, Loops and barrel rolls. But the inverted stuff in any plane requires inverted systems to sustain inverted manuvers. Again, it's a Cozy - Not an Extra 300 or a One Design. The Cozy like the EZ's are very strong. These design's pick up speed far quicker then conventional aircraft and a pilot who is not well trained in this can cause much harm to himself. I suggest you buy a Cozy owner some fuel and breakfest in exchange for a demo ride. Pick someone that will show you a canard stall and some of the different flying characteristics of the canard design. Just remember that the idea of our designs is "economy of flight" and not loops and rolls. We have an amazing group of people here and one of the nicest looking designs in the sky and most of us conduct ourselves as gentleman (sorry gal's, I just didn't want to say ladies). (You'll find the ladies amoung us the best around too!). One more plug. In August I was able to attend my 30 high school reunion (Flew my Long-EZ). At the Hillsboro, Oregon airport, a gentlemen approached me saying he and a friend had built a Long-ez (Just a Cozy on a diet<Grin>) and his friend passed away and the Long was sold and he built a Lancair 320. Just to prove a point to an old classmate I said, "Ever sorry you sold the Long-EZ." He replied, "Every day since I flew the Lancair." Not to say that the Lancair is bad, it's just that I find people tend to really miss the fine qualities of the canard design. Hope this helps.....

Rob, Good questions – I will address each question as you asked them…… Some would be apparent to you if you had a set of plans. First, I have only built sections for Cozy’s (Since I built and fly a LEZ) but having been a professional builder I think I can do this task justice. <<<I have also read some of the newsletters relating stories of successful forced landings. Can anyone out there add to this knowledge base? Was this a consideration for anyone of you builders?<<< I here this question from time to time and personally am kind of amazed. I think that the answer is obvious. Of course landing at 55 is better then 70 MPH. But, if you ask most builders, I think they would tell you that they would rather land off field in there Cozy or composite airplane rather then a spam can or so tube and fabric aircraft. You will find this crowd to be dominated by engineers and scientific minded people more then any other homebuilding crowd. And to suggest they are safety conscience is an understatement for the majority. The other big difference is builder-pilot verses buyer-pilot. Some folks tend to give advice without the experience or background to do so. To the point – Most “Forced Landings” as you call them (I prefer off-field since we have to force our planes to land on a runway<Grin>) are largely determined by the terrain you’re landing on. Since our airplanes do not stall, it does give them a margin of safety but the pilot’s abilities have much more to do with it. My theory is, airliners land at approximately 130 knots, and it does stop people flying on them and most of there off field landing are certain death. >>> How does one verify the lay-up quality of workmanship with composites? Do you all just go on faith that each epoxy layer has cured correctly or are there some tell-tale signs to look for? Do you keep the left-overs (in the cups) for inspection after cure?<<<< The plans explain this but to be brief there are two ways. Weight of the lay-up and air-void content. We have known weights for parts and we use a maximum air-void content of 2%. I myself use a maximum of .5% air content and always strive for zero content. Many people do keep there left over epoxy in cups and mark the date and time on them. Tell tale signs of poor workmanship are usually air bubbles in the lay-up and over weight parts caused by too much epoxy. >>> How do you perform maintenance checks on a composite airframe? How can you tell something's amiss?<<<<< We tap the structure with a quarter and listen carefully for the sound to change. A sharp tap indicates a good bond and a dull tap indicates a possible dis-bond or delamination. >>>>> Do you check for 'flutter' during the individual test phase of these aircraft? I know about the problem of overweight elevators, but even when everything balances out correctly, are there any special maneuvers during the flight test?<<<<<< Probably one of the most overlooked areas is the flight test scenario. Many do not do adequate flight testing. You need to take the plane to the very edge of the line to “PROVE” it can do the maneuver or fly in control at the edge of the box and all perimeters in between. This is a sore point with me because one of the paragraph that has to be attested to is; This aircraft has demonstrated to be controllable through all phases of flight and exhibits no departures from controllable flight. – Or something to that affect. A good place to go is a circular- AC90-89A put out by the FAA. Wouldn’t you know the title is “Testing Your Homebuilt.” The link is: http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur/ac90-89a.pdf Hope this answers your questions. -Dale

It is now.... I forgot the "o" in Dynon.... Sorry bout' that! -Dale

Hey Daryl, Have you seen the EFIS-D10 from Dynon Development. Check out at; www.dynondevelopment.com

I think I have found a great place for ther oil cooler however, it will require the top of the baffling to be of the "dog house" style. This is the kind where the entire engine is covered with a material. I plan to use aluminum. The place will be centered on top of the case with the oil vanes of the cooler perpendicular to the aircraft C/L. A rectangular hole will be made on the dog-house just aft of the engine mount ears (like that makes sense) and the cooler mounted to the doghouse. Air will flow from the inlets up to the cut-out, throught the cooler and out the back of the cowl. No holes in the top cowl to slow us down! The goal wih this design is to allow anyone with any kind of fire layout to adapt his to there EZ without challenges. ( I can also move my oil cooler from its spot on the firewall which will allow for greater access to other accessory case equipment). This position will also allow cooling when the aircraft is shut down and the majority of oil to drain from the oil cooler when parted nose down. More later, Dale:D

Jack, Sounds like a good prop. Normally, when the prop is not the same from blade to blade (and I assume your speaking of a two bladed propeller) in pitch angle, this causes uneven tracking and produces a vibration. Since your testing indicates smooth - I have to wonder about your equipment for measurement..... I know from looking at your products that you definitely know how to measure so, I am only asking you to look one more time make to sure something isn't interfering with your measurements. I have no other reason for your success with this prop but might offer a guess. The wood on one blade is flexing more then the other? I think I wood send it to Gary Hertzler and ask him to copy it! Interesting condition

Jim, Now I like that idea. Only thing I would do different is put the electric pump in the sump and make it fairly easy to remove the whole sump for annual MX. (Change sock filter and thoroghly clean interior of sump). Best part is we will get to see how well John system performs also:D Dale PS Now to go fishing for an hour or so

Guys, It seems that the complication of this system grows. I have yanked out some of my old engineering systems books and been doing more reading. Then I contacted some old classmates that work still work in the business. We all agree that; Two tanks into one sump should eliminate gads of plumbing. I am forced to submit that from either both tanks or from one sump, the fuel should be pushed not sucked. The pumps are readily available and it would appear that a tee'd return would be simple, yes/no? If fuel pushed from a sump I would install the return line to the sump if the mains are gravity feed to the sump. A major concern seems to be fuel in the cockpit. Seems like a Cozy has a large enough firewall to accomidate a firewall mounted sump near the bottom of the firewall. I think simplicity has a lot to be say. Further, our recommendation seem to change with different engines types. Cheers,

Jack, One thing that has happened on more then one occasion is the aircraft pulling enough G’s to cause the solenoid to engage in flight. If you were trying to avoid something in your flight path it would be very possible for this to happen. Mounting the solenoid so the contactor is sideways will help. Another point. Going through the firewall with any amperage is not a concern if accomplished using normal practices. I can think absolutely no reason for concern here. Maybe you could bring shed some food for thought here. Having two batteries for starting I think is all right for a ground vehicles but nonsense in an airplane. All that is required is to switch positions of the two batteries to make the airplane start and in reality, how often is that going to happen? What single engine (piston) certified airplane uses two batteries? Dale PS Ol' Bob K. does know his stuff.

Jim, Since the fuselage does produce lift this would not be a great idea... Well, for me anyway. One other thing gents - Visibility is a weather condition – Field of view has to do with obstructions (or the lack of them) in our view.

Jack and All, While I don't want to constantly try and defend DD cooling, I think many of you might want do a little more research. Our own Terry Schubert's system is very good and he uses his right top inlet for cooling air to the oil cooler. At this point I feel if I make a duplicatable system, I should be able to market it with a big price tag since many folks seem to think it so hard to accomplish. IMO, one must just not consider cooling drag. If it were the same as updraft and the dd system allowed for less parasite drag you would be getting more speed from the plane and actually if you wanted to fly the same speed and reduce the power and perhaps save extra wear and tear on the engine and be consuming less fuel one might want to consider the savings that way. This will be my last post here for sometime as it appears those who have the system are not eager to share and I can better use the time building the DD cooling system then debating it..... DD most likely isn't for everyone but then again neither is flying. Cheers,

Real quick, My ides for a sump is to remove the rear seat back and make one intragal with it. On the LEZ we have this contoured half tire thing on the back side. Seems like a little research once removed would allow a guy to make it a fuel tank on the back. My valve is mounted on the right side below tank and sump level and the valve stem and handle are just aft of my right elbow so infligt I never have to let go of the stick. I eliminated over 12 feet of aluminum tubing. The best method I have seen fro the LEZ is Bob Davenports. Took the sumps all the way aft to the cowl and routed the fuel to the valve on the firewall. Just an idea! Must get to movin'

Jim & John, Has anyone tried a submerged fuel pump in a "sump" as such using avgas? I have not researched it yet. I still like the two tanks into one sump also (worked well for Vance all these years) but of course the SPF is back. I was thinking that a valve and a line could be set up to one tank to provide an emergency back up for clogs but fuel comtamination might not work so well in this scenario.

John, After sitting on my hands for two weeks..... I feel the safest way is two independant tanks with a mechanical valve. KISS seems to be screaming at me. Return feeds could also have a mechanical valve to decide which tank to use. Whatever yo decide will most likely work.

Nat, Your jab at my current profession I would have thought below you. (I guess I still make mistakes in character). To answer your question directly, trying to reduce drag, reduce weight and have a simple system with easier access to engine componets. As smart as you are I'm sure you knew that. I would also guess you think since I have left engineering and found a new profession that my little peon brain is not up to the task. - You may be right! -- Oh, one last thing, I don't rely upon luck when it comes to systems design. Good Luck in your furture endeavors as well,

Nat, While your mind seems to be made up, mine is not. In my engineering days (which are still current) we were taught to use systems as they were intended. Hence, the need for down draft cooling. I too have made updraft work however, it is not better. Let's examine your claims; 1.) The NACA scoop is low drag - not NO drag. The scoops on top can be smaller and the air on top is not in compression so they do not creat as much drag. The required shape of the lower cowl is real draggy. The penalty for frontal area verses induced drag are less so the theory about speed is inaccurate. 2.) The pressure of the air is the same whether induction is on top or the bottom. Ram pressure could be greater but only if a poorly designed system is used for DD. Angle of attack in a climb will not affect a well designed system. Since the drag is less on the DD system the speed would be greater using the same BTU's for power thus it will subject to greater airflow. 3.) The cooling on the ground with dd could be poor however with augmentation and superior baffling that has not been a problem. Rather then change your mind about downdraft cooling, I would challenge you to think of all the benefits of down draft. 1.) Less baffling 2.) Easier to work on engine 3.) Greater access to starter, alternater 4.) Cooling air to the top of the case were it is needed. 5.) Cooling air to the bottom is easily doable These are only a few..... It sure is amazing what cleaning up that bottom cowl can do. Gary Hertzler's lower cowl is a perfect example of the the correct lines that we can achieve easily with down draft. I am not willing to use a modified engine sump just yet or re-route and fabricate all new intake tubes to use updraft as Gary has. Like yours, my own CHT temperatures using up draft are now to low. Keep in mind that to produce 75% power you require 365F cylinder head temperature. Under that you require more fuel to achieve the same power results. We may disagree but one thing is for sure to me, and that is that updraft cooling is a greater compromise and does cause greater internal engine wear.

Well, well, well....... I must say that everyone wants to know how. I wrote John a personal email explaining that these are some of the ways I produce income. It is more timely (easier for me) to tell someone or show and let them some how experience the task rather them try to write a manual online. Perhaps time will lend itself in the fall months. Since I will be doing this later I could surely take pictures but that in of itself will not explain every thing. Hopefully I can put something together in a small pamphlet form. You see it all depends what your making and even the materials you feel the most comfortable using. I will be making a mold for the LEZ and perhaps I could also make one for the Cozy as well. A person could make the money to pay for it faster with a pert-time job then do all the work himself. Besides I still have to finish the canard offset elevator modification first. Here is a shot of the newer pipes. I had to remove all the rear baffling and the alternator. Much to our suprise the DD baffling will not be using this metal and will look much like this in the long run.

John, While working at Scaled I have learned a couple of other ways to build a cowl that would appear to be a little easier.

Mike, You are correct in your assumption however, (don't you just love the however word)- when this is applied to a LEZ or the VE we tend to forget about the sharp up-curve it has to make in order to make a close close out with the spinner. If you have ever seen Gary Hertzler's bottom cowl you will understand. I have already been told that a new cowling is a must for maximum speed. Making new cowls will be one of the last things I do - (that's the lie I want you to believe now anyway) - as I finish this retrofit. And in fairness to the bottom mounted NACA scoop it will work okay, but it is not the best for cooling an engine that was designed to be cooled from the top down. As a fact, the top of the case needs to have a cool air supply and this is due to many factors. One of which is that the cam is above the crank shaft it rides in aluminum journals formed by the case halves without any bearings what-so-ever. And I further believe that a well thought out DD system will not only cool the engine better, it will also allow us to shape the rear of the airplane to create less drag and better airflow to the prop. I have already found that dd will allow easier access to the engine for MX. That's enough of my oppinion for now : )