Norm M

Just posted the info: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/Osh.htm This is a page I put up for information about Waterloo (ALO) as an intermediate stop on the way to Oshkosh. Nice quick flight up to MSN for the glass overcast gathering. The basics: Three long, wide runways, minimal traffic. Livingstons is offering a 50 cent discount on 100ll. $32 for a room at the Days Inn, includes continental breakfast. They have a shuttle bus to the airport. If people need autofuel, I will try to be available to shuttle fuel as required. I will be around Sunday afternoon to play host. Last year a bunch of us went to Applebees for supper. I will have my Cozy IV available for rides, weather permitting. Regards- Norm

That looks very similar to what I have, except that yours has a box on the side of it with the outlet. One thing that you want to be careful with is that if you turn the knob the wrong way, you can put high voltage across the hotwire. It will turn orange and burn out (for some reason I know this)! A person could put a temporary stop on the dial to keep it from getting too hot, or just pay close attention. Good Luck! -Norm

A number of things to look for, most of which I am not an expert on! Isolation: Is the output voltage isolated from the input? If not, then you could be working with one end of your wire at 120 volts and the other at 100 voltage. Could be shocking, to say the least. If you have a transformer, there is a good chance that it is isolated. Connecting the output to the hot wire rig: Here is a picture that shows some detail: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/PIC00179.jpg I attached a length of wire to each of the output leads. You may have to make a plug up for your transformer. For what you describe, I would get a cheap two wire extension cord, 8 feet long, and cut the female end off. Strip the wires and fasten these to each end of your hot wire. These were about 8 feet long or so. You need enough so that you are not dragging the transformer around when you do your cutting. I put an aligator clip on each end that I could use to clip the wire to the tension tube (as seen in the upper rh corner). You can also clip it directly to the hotwire near the tension tubes. Now that I think about it, you could roll the stripped end under the hot wire as you tighten up each end. No misc connectors needed. The resistor comment won't work. You are either going to make a lot of heat or burn out the resistors. The foam we hot wire is the blue styrofoam. Thick stuff. Urethane foam is soft and crumbly, similar to the florist foam that they stick fake flowers into. You can hotwire styrofoam insulation from the lumberyard for practice. The 'bead board' is quite different, but most yards will have either blue or pink extruded styrofoam. I insulated the torque tubes on my hot wire rig with vinyl electrical tape. I also had my helpers wear nitrile gloves (like what we wear to protect against epoxy). If I remember correctly, we were around 20 volts for cutting. If your secondary is isolated, 20 volts is pretty safe. Hope this helps! -Norm

You may find some interesting discussion and links on this page. http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/barracuda/barracudafairingdesign.htm There is a link to some aerodynamic applets that let you play with shapes and watch the impact on drag and such. He also has some interesting information about blowing plastic bubbles (canopies) which could be applicable. Cut your template, blow the left side, flip it over, blow the right side. Use these for molds for your glass layup. -Norm

Prop length on the Cozy is limited by the geometry associated with the rear gear and position of the prop. According to the theory behind props, the larger the number of blades, the poorer the efficiency. Most people are flying three bladed props because they are smoother. Plus they look nice. I seem to remember a discussion about the flexibility of the blades that would be required for a scimitar prop to flex, and that this actually worked against you. But I could be worng about that. -Norm

Actually, anyone can work on the airplane. If you do not hold a Repairman's Certificate for that airplane, you can not sign off the annual inspection. This will need to be done by an A&P (& perhaps other officially initialed individuals). In some areas it can be a problem to get the sign-off. -Norm

Have you seen what an aluminum plane looks like after it has been hit by a hail storm? The aluminum will dent, and not much can be done short of reskinning it, or flying it with dents. Ask Georger Graham how composite planes hold up to Buffalo, NY winters. I don't know which is rougher, sitting in the ice & snow, or sitting in the heat. Either way, if you are leaving your plane outside in hail storms and ice storms, you can expect that it will weather a bit over the years. Some people use covers, but remember that covers can scuff the canopy also. -Norm going from sharing a hanger to having it to myself in a week!

Everything we build is metric, and has been 100% for 15 years, and for the previous 10 years was only english where there were existing carryover designs (the mixed years). Now, the only time I see anything english is with things like pipe threads (apparently there is no metric equivalent, and we don't use a lot of pipe threads anyways). As far as the plans go, you have to consider that they are 30 years old. I'm sure that the aircraft plan sets developed in Australia, Germany, and Japan are all designed in metric.

So, direct drive, 150hp at 2600 rpm, 330 pounds. Do we still need a radiator with this engine, or is it air cooled?

The propellor for a 60 hp engine at 2400 rpm is very different than the propellor for a 200 hp engine at 2400 rpm. Here are a couple of basics to consider, for a given airplane. It takes a certain amount of horsepower to make the airplane cruise at a given speed. More horsepower, greater speed. But- It takes a lot more horsepower to get a little more speed. Thus, a 180 hp will cruise faster than a 160 hp, but the 200 hp will be just slightly faster than a 180 hp. To the point where it is difficult to compare because a slight improvement in drag reduction will show greater results than the difference in horsepower. The 180 hp in a Cozy seems to be a very good match. For a given horsepower, the fuel required will be roughly equivalent. There will be arguments about different engines being more or less efficient, and this may be true. But when you here outrageous arguments about 200 horsepower on 10 gallons per hour, you are hearing a sales pitch, and not good data. If you run a 160 horsepower engine at max output, and a 200 hp engine at an equivalent power level, they will burn about the same amount of fuel, and cruise at about the same speed. The 200 hp may weigh slightly more, and thus could actually be slower at an exact same power level. The big difference in power can be seen at takeoff performance. Here we are not looking at the big difference in drag as a function of speed, but simply how much static thrust can we get from an engine. The larger horsepower will win this game every time. (With an appropriate prop, of course). The big thing about commercial diesel engines is the weight. Aircraft engines have many compromises because they are built to deliver a high horsepower to weight ratio. The modern automotive engines would be the obvious solution for a powerplant, if it weren't for the fact that they are at a disadvantage with regards to weight by the time you get everything together that is required for an aircraft engine. This means some type of reduction drive so that the prop can spin approximately 2400 to 3000 rpm, while letting the engine run at 4500 to 6000 rpm. Next, with a water cooled engine you need to accomodate some type of radiator, with a turbocharged engine you usually will need some type of intercooler. Packaging these elements becomes a significant challenge. There are many others with better knowledge of the exact equations behind prop power, cruise drag, and all of these other issues. But perhaps this message will help you understand some of the relationships. Regards- Norm

Careful, if you are using styrofoam, that polyester resin will just melt through it. Also, the pot life on polyester resin is very short compared to the types of epoxy that we use for airplanes. I have gone through several 55 gallon drums of polyester resin, but none of it went into plane construction. Some outfits use the polyester resin into molds for engine cowls and such. Again, completely different type of layup. A local builder called me to ask some questions about making a fuel tank. He had bought some vinylester resin, very thin cloth, and no filler material. Made for a long discussion, basically started with 'I wish you would have asked me first before ordering all this stuff...'. Be very careful with the MekP catalyst. It is nasty, nasty stuff. -Norm

There was a manager at work that bought an Archer to learn how to fly in. He loved the plane and loved flying with an instructor. But he could never stomach flying by himself. He just could not overcome the fear of screwing up. Eventually, he ended up selling the plane. If you are confident that flying is going to work for you, start building. But I would at least recommend that you take a couple lessons to see if you even like flying in small planes.

Some people like the threaded discussions, others like the way email maillists work. Some people like archives, others don't. The way I see it, whatever works for you, use it. No need to throw stones at what other people like. Take a look at how the posts are treated. These forums each have a flavor, but predominately they are populated by builders, or potential builders, who have this mutual support society. When the flyers post 'don't worry about it, build it', they get trashed. I think that this is the thread where I really decided to significantly decrease my postings, somewhere around post 20: http://www.canardzone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=286 I really began to understand that a lot of people just want to talk, and aren't really interested in advice or opinions. They would like people to support their point of view, to help them justify or rationalize thier actions or activities. A number of people want others to view them as experts, or trailblazers, or sages. That they are the true innovators, or the true communicators, or the purveyors of the perfect King's English. Experts in spelling and punctuation, etiquette, netiquette, physics, philosophy, and fishsticks. Or at being half a bubble off with a sick sense of humor. A number of people are jealous of the respect that is shown to Rutan, or Nat, and to some of the other pioneers and experts in the field. Sometimes, when people aren't getting the attention or recognition that they feel the deserve, they go elsewhere. After the thrashing that many have taken, I seriously question myself before every post that I actually respond to. First off, do I have any basis for providing a response to the question. Second, will someone else provide what I believe to be correct advice. Third will anything that I be worth the additional noise that I create. Most of the time I delete the responses before posting. I still respond to some questions, but most of the time it is a private response. There is room in this universe for any number of mail lists, message boards, websites, fly-ins, gatherings, airshows, etc. We are not going to come to consensus on what is the best, what is justified, which ones should be avoided, which organization is the most beneficial, or who is the greatest aviator. But we can try to get along, be polite with each other, be open to other people's ideas and opinions, be accepting of other people's choices, and maybe be willing to accept that each of us could learn something from other builders (or flyers), and that maybe we don't have everything right ourselves. The more I see things being challenged, the less confidence I have in offering up my learnings, experience, or opinions. I should delete this, but what the heck. There were some other elements in this thread that I was going to address, but right now it is more important that I put some primer on my plane where I did the repair work on those stupid hidden rudder horns. -Norm

Fellow Builders & Flyers: We are getting closer to Oshkosh, & the Canardian Confluence at Waterloo, Iowa. ALO is a little over an hour out from OSH, and has three nice long runways, minimal air traffic, and reasonable accommodations. Marc’s Tour Out West will be here on Sunday, July 25th, weather, technology, TFRs, and airplanes permitting. The plan is for several of us to accumulate at ALO on Sunday, and then fly up early Monday morning. Weather permitting, Sunday is an opportunity for builders or potential builders to get up close and personal with a Cozy. There should be rides available. I have researched the hotels that make sense here in Waterloo/ Cedar Falls for those of you who may be flying or driving in. Days Inn 319-266-1222 $25 Single/ $30 Double Free Breakfast Holiday Inn 319-277-2230 $49 To reserve a room(s), you need to call and ask for the “Livingston Special Rate”. Livingston’s is the FBO at ALO, and they will be your host for the Confluence. Livingston’s is also running an Oshkosh special on fuel, with $0.50 off the posted price for 100LL (& Jet-A for those of you with turbines). Current price on 100LL is $3.05, so if prices hold, that would make fuel $2.55 per gallon. The Days Inn & Holiday Inn are right next to each other, and are owned by the same company. Folks staying at the Days Inn can use all of the Holiday Inn facilities, including the pool. The difference as I see it is that the Days Inn is the old part of the Holiday Inn, but it has been renovated and looks to be quite acceptable. Both places will run a shuttle out to the airport (probably the same vehicle). Here is the link to Marc's Tour: http://cozybuilders.org/2004_Western_Trip/2004_Western_Trip_day_14.htm Regards- Norm

I have a couple big storage containers that I slid under the table. (Approx 18x24x36) In these containers I would store the extra flox and micro (bought in 5 gallon quantities). I used one for electronics, sensors, switches, terminals, and wire. And I used a big fishing tackle box (the kind with divided trays that you can pull out) to store the bolts, nut plates, and other hardware. I also stored a couple bags of fiberglass cloth scraps down there. I set a limit of two bags, because otherwise it would just accumulate. When the scraps get too small, just through them away. Early on there isn't much dust, but later you will really appreciate having things under cover! Regards- Norm

How about we do some layups each way. Some with no treatment, some with 100% peel ply, some with 100% plastic peel ply. Zero out the weight of the core material, and you have the weight of the layup. It would also be interesting to compare epoxies to see if there is a weight savings associated with the brand of epoxy. Show a real weight savings, and now you have some data to backup the hypothesis. It would also be interesting to see what a vacuum bagged layup would weigh in at. Anyway, I've got some divinycell, glass, and Aeropoxy that I would be willing to contribute to the experiment.

I need to correct the interpretation of some of my statements: <<== <... recent landings have been much flatter, and I rarely use the speed brake ...> I would advise against this. I've operated out of airfields that have low terrain off the runway end and you can get some really nasty downdrafts on short final==>> What I should have said was 'recent landings have been done with much less flare, and I am carrying more speed across the numbers.' I lower the speed brake across the numbers, and still make the mid field turnoff without any problems. I just didn't see the need for mushing in on the edge of a canard bob. Short field, sure, parachute on down at close to minimal speed. I much prefer a tight pattern, it seems to be much easier to lose control off your altitude and airspeed when you get put on a 30 mile straight in final. <<== <... I am fortunate to have huge runways, and the further I fly down the runway the less I have to taxi ...> A sound enough enough practice (I hate taxiing for miles and miles too), but a bad habit IMO.==>> Again, If I mush it across the numbers, I have to taxi further down the runway to the mid field turn-off. I don't see any reason to come in at minimum controllable airspeed across the numbers. I have a touch down point that I target, so I am not allowing huge variation on altitude or speed. Speed and altitude control are a big deal on this slippery plane. Not trying to be defensive. I can see where it would become easy for people based at a big runway airport to never develop speed control, and really get in trouble at a short runway field. Or refuse to even consider a shorter runway. I learned to fly off grass, and it always struck me as funny that some pilots would absolutely not land at a grass strip. So I guess we all have our comfort zones. This spring and summer I plan on setting up a camcorder at a nearby uncontrolled strip, so I can critique my landing spot, stopping distance, and technique. Practice makes permanent. Regards- Norm

The camera was looking ahead straight over the nose. The pilot is sitting to one side, and can see a bit more of the canard. But in a high performance climb out, it's all blue sky! I will see if I can mount the camera looking out the co-pilot side, to get a more representative view slightly off to one side. I would like to make more flying video, but I fly from a controlled airport, where it is tough to get close to the runway to video the takeoffs or landings. Other things of notice: The vibration after landing was from the nose wheel. Tightening the nose wheel damper fixed that problem. Also, I have been questioning the term 'carrier landing'. What I did here was a flair, and when the canard ran out of lift the nose plopped onto the runway. Is a carrier landing more of a three-point where you have no flair? My recent landings have been much flatter, and I rarely use the speed brake. Of course, I am fortunate to have huge runways, and the further I fly down the runway the less I have to taxi... Regards- Norm

Advantage of auto conversion: Once you create a reliable power plant, things like maintenance, repairs, service parts, and overhauls are trivial. Parts are readily available, at very affordable prices. Many low horsepower examples are flying. Disadvantage of auto conversion: Not all components are highly developed and readily available. Not a great number of flying examples. High horsepower applications are less common. Advantage of Lycoming installation: All parts are available. Large number of flying examples. Many people knowledgeable about the basic engine and installation. Weight, horsepower, and performance are well known. Disadvantage of Lycoming installation: Typical installation is a used engine, or engine rebuilt from used parts. Service life is quite often unknown. When engine needs overhaul, it may be very expensive. Cost of ownership is unpredictable. Things that are debatable: Initial cost of installation: An auto conversion is not necessarily cheap. A Lycoming engine is not necessarily expensive. (Everything is relative, of course.) Reliability: Auto conversions typically rely on a reduction drive of some type. New intake and exhaust systems are sometimes required. The reliability of these auxiliary systems becomes the weak point of the system. The Lycoming engines also have failure modes, some of which are dramatic. The comparison of number of failures is meaningless, as the number of hours flown by auto conversions is miniscule compared to Lycoming hours.

I have posted a condensed video of my first flight (takeoff and landing only). I finally figured out that I had a typo in the link, and that is why it wouldn't download the file before. Anyways, others may learn from some of the things that I did not quite right. The video camera was a mini-dv Cannon mounted to the TB1 bulkhead, right about in the middle of the plane. You can see a very good representation of what the visual cues are over the nose of the plane. http://www.gourmetdamage.com/video/ The small file is 3.8 Meg, so it will take some time to download. Regards- Norm

I was very fortunate to be given some dual time in a Cozy III the evening before first flight in my Cozy IV. I would like to be able to pass that generosity on to other builers that are close to flying their planes. These planes are not difficult to fly, but they are different than your typical trainers. As far as joy rides for potential builders, I think there are several reasons why they are somewhat scarce: There aren't that many Cozy IVs flying. The Cozy IIIs are even tighter in the front seat, and more limited for front weight capability. Especially if they were built with the Plans reccommended O-235. So unless you are a small person, it might be tough to get a ride in a Cozy III. I just finished my plane. I have not done a lot of flying in the past 15 years. I am not sure that I want to go to an unknown airport, with unknown traffic, and then turn the controls over to another pilot? In another year, with more hours and cross country experience, then maybe. (But for now, If Slade wants to checkout he needs to come up here. Unless I decide to brave my way to SnF) Marc's Tour of America is stopping in Waterloo the Sunday before Oshkosh. I have already offered to several builders that they can build parts in my shop around that time, just to help them get started and maybe do some flying. If you need something to do the week before Oshkosh, let me know. We can build some bulkheads, or turtlebacks, or canards... Or hotwire wings. Regards- Norm Starting a crusade to help people see the light and begin building...

1: Join EAA 2: Print of John Deere EAA member discount Coupon 3: Buy new LX280 Lawn Tractor 4: Save $200 with coupon 5: Spend net $150 on airplane stuff! Regards- Norm waiting to pick up the LX280 and snow blower...

Since this forum tends to be open season on people with Lycoming powered flying airplanes, I might as well jump into the fracas! I will attempt to do this in a manner that irritates and cranks off as many of the non-builders as possible, just so the image that people with a few years of building experience are simply being arrogant SOBs when they respond to questions posed by beginning builders. Also, I purchased almost all of my materials from the non-approved supplier, Wicks Aircraft and Organ Sales. This information comes from their 1998 Catalog. I think the files are available in a spreadsheet format if you ask for them, but I'm not sure. Their Fiberglass kit for Section 1 consists of 109 yards of BID, and 207 yards of UNI. Section 2 consists of 30 yards BID, and 20 yards UNI. Total, 139 yards BID, 227 yards UNI. 282 yards of Spar Tape. I believe those yards assume you are going to buy all the prefab fiberglass parts, like turtleback and armrests. So you need a few more. Plus, some people run out of cloth when they order the 'Chapter kits'. This could be from not making quite as efficient use of the cloth, or just a slight error in the plans. I ordered two rolls of UNI, one roll of BID, and two rolls of spar tape. I found that $200 of truck freight would deliver all of the foam, glass, 15 gallons of epoxy, all the metal, nuts & bolts, etc. You can see what the order looked like on the trailer here: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/Page.html Pictures 110, 111, and 112 show the trailer on it's way from the truck dock to my shop. There is also some pictures of 92VT heading out when it was flying off the hours. <Heck, we might as well just pack it up and close the forum. Its practically useless!> Yup, it's easy to get discouraged about participating on forums like this. The signal to noise ratio becomes quite weak at times. Marc said: <<The COZY plans are about the best you'll find on the market - Burt and Nat did a GREAT job. That's not to say they can't be improved - they can - >> These plans are fantastic, all things considered. I about went nuts trying to figure out where the dimensions were, and looking for detail that did not quite exist. The bulkhead drawings get to a lot of people, and the whole thing about piecing the airfoils together. Here's what I did: First: Printed off the CAD files of the bulkheads. (Found at http://cozybuilders.org/cad_files/ ). If you don't have access to a big CAD plotter, put out the request and see if someone helps you out. Second- John Epplin made a great set of wing templates. They have probably been used on 20 sets of wings so far, and were recently found lurking in New Mexico. I have been the coordinator of those templates in the past, and may know where they are when you get to that point. Third: Someone described it as getting into the Zen of building. You need to take a bit of a leap of faith, and just start building. Before I started, someone sent me an email that said 'Stop writing emails, start building.' Sent from a person who was flying his airplane. Guaranteed to absolutely crank off every non-builder who is fussing over the details, trying to get everything figured out before they start in on the project. Fourth: The mantra: Relax, it's fiberglass, anything can be fixed. I heard about another one of those Mister Peepers hand in the mouth dances from a builder who just did a major boo-boo on a freshly painted wing. And he was laughing about it... (Not a lot, but he was still laughing) Relax, it's fiberglass, anything can be fixed. So, for those about to Glass: We salute You! Relax, Breath, and Glass. Build a Chapter or two before you worry about the finishing touches. Relax, Breath, and Glass. You don't need axles, tires, or brakes for a long time. Relax, Breath, and Glass. There will be more experience with all engines by the time you get there. Relax, Breath, and Glass... Regards- Norm

<<Now you pay the piper....>> Yeah, that's the problem with actually finishing one of these planes. The guys who build for 15 years save so much money! I should put a pencil to what the engine installation really cost me. The biggest issue with Lycomings is that you have no clue what your total cost of operation is until you sell it! Some people have made out great, others have lost their shirts.

<<This is what holds you in the air, after all.>> Oh, so wrong! What keeps you in the air is the vacuum caused by all the money being rapidly sucked out of your wallet! But seriously- Check the 3rd paragraph: http://www.canard.com/cp/stet/CP10-8.html "If you are searching for substitutes do not accept any material which has lower strength or other physical properties than the recommended materials shown as follows: Blue Styrene: Dow Chemical Co. Brand F.B. Styrofoam, 2 +- 0.2 lb/cubic feet density, cell size 1.4 to 2.4 mm." Note- FB ==>either Floatation Billet or Fabrication Billet, depending on which source you believe.