shender1

John,

Please keep me posted on the status of your plans. I will talk to my friend tonight and see if he is still interested...

Thanks,

Sean Henderson

Thanks for the info! I will pass it along to my friend.

I saw a real nice example of one at the Rough River fly in. It is a large plane.

Jim, I met you at Rough River this year. I was the guy hauling around three kids. We talked a little bit about rotaries and your

plane.

Thanks again for everyones input!

Sean Henderson

Does any one know of Defiant plans for sale and or have any specs on the plane?

A friend of mine has done some reading on composite construction and is interested in mold less construction. I've told him to look at the cozy but he wants something with more space. The Defiant looks like it might be a contender but I've told him that plans would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to find. I know that the RAF does not sell them anymore.

Thanks,

Sean

Originally posted by John Slade

I'm 165. If you could get down to that you could have an air conditioner.

If I get down to 165 I have bigger problems than worrying about sweat!

Yeah I know...

I was responding to Johns previous quote.

Originally posted by John Slade While they have high-speed, long distance cruise in common, the RV-10 and Cozy are rather different in terms of mission. The Cozy is not ideal for aerobatics or short field (grass) runways while the RV is good at both. [/b]

I do agree with everything else John said..

For me the decision was difficult. I think both designs are exceptional and I would be happy with either.

I like the idea of spreading the costs out and I think that the cozy does have a cruise performance advantage based on engine size so thats why I went with the cozy.

From reading the specs it seems to me that the RV-10 will have more interior space. Thats important if you're 6'1" and weigh 250 such as I do. I do plan to be 200lbs by the time the cozy is ready to fly.

The rv-10 is not recomended for aerobatics...

Hey John Slade!

Have you come up with an intake and a intercooler yet? If so, what kind of setup are you using?

Thanks for the replies everyone!

I went out to home depot this weekend and discovered that most of the pineshelf boards are twisted and or not longer than 10 feet. I think that I will use the I beams.

Norm. What is the motor that is in the middle of your table? Just curious.

Also..how do you go about rigging up a standard thermostat to a light switch? Most of the thermsostats I looked at only go up to 90 degress...A friend of mine suggested that I use a dimmer switch on a light to get the desired temp.

I spoke to Nat about the construction of the jig table and he told me that he was surprised "how elaborate" people get with their tables. I got the impression that builders may be overdoing it by using the I beams and masonite.

Any thoughts or comments?

Also, does any one have a good suggestion for a thermostat and light bulb set up for the epoxy pump box?

All answers are appreciated!

I want to apologize to rmaddy for getting us off the subject. I was reading this thread and thought I might get a quick answer to the question.

Sorry!

I agreee with most of the points that have been given but I really dont see much differnce between refueling aircraft and automobiles.

Pesronally I think the grounding of aircraft is maybe a good procedure if we are overly cautious but in reality the odds that a tank will explode are in our favor.

Everything that has been said or discussed about this issue points out the danger of refueling without grounding but in every example given, the moment the difference of potential comes in contact with each other, there should be a spark and yet everyday cars don't explode.

I dont think that there is any evidnece that longer filler tubes prevent this from happening.

And...I think the wooshing sound has something to to with emmisions and not avoiding fuel tank explosions

Thanks for the info.

I can agree with grounding the aircraft,just to be safe, but it would seem to me that if grounding was this critical we would see more car fuel tank explosions.

Any other thoughts on this?

Originally posted by TES111

Only if your pumping gas before you put it into the filler tube. There was a neat special about this on myth busters last night.

How could you pump gas without putting the nozzle in to the filler neck and keep it from spilling on the ground?

I'm trying to understand the differnce between fueling an aircraft and an automobile. It seems to me that grounding the aircraft before fueling is needless (although I do it as I have been taught). I refuel my car everyday without grounding and I have never heard of a car blowing up because of a stray spark.

Originally posted by filipo

We do. The aluminum nozzle makes contact with the car's filler tube, thus equalizing the electric potential.

 

No difference in electric potential = no spark.

Isn't the idea to equalize the potential before you refuel? If you use the gas nozzle it is closest to the fumes.

A quick question...may sound dumb...but...why dont we ground our cars before we refuel them?

I plan on attending and would like to know when the most of the group arrives. Does anyone Know?

I am taking friday off but I have to wait for the wife to get off work at 3:00pm so I haven't decided whether to leave friday evening or saturday morning. I would like to meet as many builders as possible.

I'll be borrowing a friends Tomahawk to make the trip from Columbus Ohio.

I think we are related!