Norm M

I think I uses a scruffy piece of leftover Luan plywood (floor underlayment) for my temporary firewall. All you really need is something to hold the longerons in the correst position, relative to each other. If you do a search for Dow Bouancy Foam Billets, you come up with stuff like this: http://www.fpcfoam.com/prodsize.html http://www.amistorefront.com/detail.aspx?ID=13 http://www.larkdock.com/styrofloat.htm I suspect (but have no proof) that the blue foam we use is cut down from these billets. The advantage of buying the foam from an 'approved' source is that the plans have been optomized for those sizes. There is still a lot of scrap, but no really big pieces when you are all done. If you hotwire the extruded foam from Home Depot, it will curl around and warp. Try making gliders for your kids sometime! Regards- Norm

<<Now, since the pump appears to be 2 plastic containers, a metal stand, and a few leaky gaskets... I would prefer to pay Number 3. I expect that would put the pump around $75. However, those involved with the sale of the pump are aware that we will be working thousands of hours on our aircraft. A sticky stuff pump could reasonably save us hundreds of $$$ in productivity. Since this product saves valuable time, and since there is no competition, the price stands at $219.>> The parts listed are the simple pieces. The complicated piece is the piston block assembly, which has a couple check valves associated with it. And there are two of those assemblies (or a block with two sets of machining. Not terribly complicated, but compared to what most people buy from Brock, and what they pay for it, this pump is priced OK. Here is another measure- How many builders who have finished their plane are interested in selling their epoxy pump? Pumps vs Scales will always be a religious matter for some people. It would be good if people could build a bulkhead or similar with a pump, and another one with a scale, and then decide what works for them. The important thing is to focus on building. Planes have been built with pumps, with scales, and with balances. Here are some pump pictures that may be of interest. This is what your hotbox looks like during Chapter 3: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/PIC00118.jpg This is how you reload it: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/PIC00153.jpg This is probably how you start to break the containers: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/PIC00174.jpg You can see how the hotbox gets messier through the build here: http://www.gourmetdamage.com/images_01/PIC00411.jpg I have not had any leaks from my pump, but probably should tear it apart and put new containers on it, just because. Regards- Norm

The Battlebots message board has been active for several years, and uses the chat attached to Delphi. I have established a room that can be used as desired. Note that you need to 'register', but you can use a bogus email address for that. Also, I have less than zero interest in being a moderator or anything like that. http://forums.delphiforums.com/fastglass/chat If someone would like to jump on scheduling a time to try it out, I would try to be there. I also checked to see if there was a chat client available for my webspace. There is, but it is an additional $7 per month. Regards- Norm Muzzy

<<I know where you can get a Rotary engine for $1500!>> If your interested in 13B cores, I have three of them in the hanger. Parked right ahead of two flying airplanes with Lycoming engines in them! Already broken down and ready to rebuild. $1000 and you can haul them away! Regards- Norm Muzzy

Imagine what the canard would look like if it were scaled up to the same square footage of a main wing. Big, blunt, thick wing. Heck, amongst ourselves, we don't even know what it really looks like, what angle it should be mounted at, or how to get enough clearance for the elevators to move up and down! The wings on really fast planes are quite thin. The canard is certainly not a thin airfoil. Thus, I suspect there is going to be more drag from it than if it were a more pleasing airfoil shape. And, on a canard plane, it is carrying a significant percentage of the airplane weight. (I am way outside my area of expertise, and need to quit posting...) I don't need to justify why I built a Cozy instead of a Lancair. It is real simple. I could afford to build and fly a Cozy. My coworker who is building a bush plane doesn't need to justify his plane to me either. His mission requirements, personal style, and choice of materials is just different from what I wanted for the first plane that I built. We need to make sure that we don't try to become elitist about our choice, or other people's choice of planes. Any plane that is safely built, completed, and flown is a true accomplishment. Doesn't matter if it is a Lancair, a Berkut, a RV Quickbuild, a Pietenpol, or an EZ. Playful ribbing may be part of the game. Especially when we are in public, we need to support homebuilt aircraft, and focus on how it can be the right way for general aviation to continue to move. I would encourage anyone with the proper motivation to build a plane. Understand the mission profile, assess your capabilities, research, choose a design, and move forward. Regards- Norm Muzzy

A co-worker who has a PhD in aerodynamics (not that a degree means anything on these forums...) shared the following arguments/ counter arguments about canard vs traditional configuration efficiencies. Conventional aircraft requires that the tail surface has an upwards force on it during flight, thus adding weight that the main wing must carry, and additional drag. However, it is a relatively light force, and a relatively efficient airfoil for the horizontal stabilizer. Canard aircraft have both the canard and the main wing contributing lift, thus you are not creating aerodynamic forces which must also be lifted by the main wing. However, the canard airfoil is relatively inefficient, and relatively highly loaded. Thus, the induced drag is greater. Seems to me that most airplanes tend to have a sweet spot for airspeed where they perform quite well. Save some horsepower, save some fuel, fly a little slower. Spend more horsepower, burn more fuel, fly a little faster. But if you want to go a great amount faster, it begins to take so much more horsepower that you get in trouble with engine weight and stuff like that. Everybody wants a really fast plane so they can brag about it, but most people are just fine with throttling back, letting the plane be a bit more quiet, and improving the fuel efficiency. I didn't build my plane to race or to win beauty contests. I built it to fly back and forth to Northern Minnesota from Central Iowa, and it does a great job at that! Now, I need to go finish those wheel pants, install the prop spinner, and order that super duper cruise prop so I can brag to my flying buddies about how fast this plane is! Regards- Norm Muzzy

Pneumatics could be used to push the nose gear down (you may stiff need some type of spring and over center mechanism), and you could lower the belly board with an air cylinder. Problem is: 1: You need a source for high pressure air 2: It is nice to be able to tease the belly board down as you need it, rather than on-off. 3: You need a plan for backups. If you use a reasonable sized air cylinder on the nose gear, you can't get a high enough spring rate with just the air pressure and the diameter of the cylinder. So you would need to use something like the plans over center mechanical system, but replace the worm gear set with a cylinder. Seems to be a lot of work to replace the gear set. You could probably use an air over oil, with an accumulator, but now you are adding a lot of weight back in. The electric actuator for the belly board is very light weight, and the installaton is almost trivial. I think these two systems are a case of where it is a lot easier to write the check for an exsiting nose lift system, and buy the actuator for the speed brake. Or build the plans version. You need a compressor to create the pressure, and an accumulator of some type. Then the valves (which really are slick pieces to work with) need a home. By the time you get the components added up, I suspect the weight is going to be a wash as well. Keep building (and put in a wider piece fo rthe belly board actuator topush on!). Regards- Norm

Its because of attitudes like what gets displayed in these messages that people stay away. Forums and mail lists tend to be occupied by builders. A self support group. There is not really a good place for people who are already flying. A lot of people are looking for reinforcement that what they are doing is the right thing. Use the forums and mail lists to support others, and to get reinforcement that building an airplane is an OK thing to do. Regarding the archives, I reviewed all of the year summaries by topic many, many times. The free text search engine works great. As an example, search for 'canard length' on this forum, and with Rick Maddy's search engine. Much easier to go by email title and source than 'the phrase is contained somewhere in this thread'. But archives are like any other source of information. If it doesn't float your boat, no big deal. I'm getting ready to order a set of plans. I think I might go build me an airplane. One of them aluminum types... Regards- Norm

More garage cleaning time. I have put up some dash 8 and dash 6 Aeroquip hose and fittings, new, never used, on eBay. Along with the removed starters, alternators, and dual mag which none of you should be interested in! http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/papanorm/ I am in the process of cleaning out the garage, getting ready for the next project. I decided to go with crimped hoses for the oil cooler lines and the fuel lines. Also, I put some 90 degree ends on the hoses. Regards- Norm Muzzy

Time to start cleaning up the shop, and selling some of the parts I decided not to use. These two items are the backbone of the electrical system I had planned for the 13B. The 40Amp ND alternator is the same unit that B&C starts with for their L40. The 20 Amp PM Dynamo is similar to the SD8, and is widely promoted for use on the Corvair conversions and such. It's claim to fame is the ability to generate voltage without needing a battery. Both units are new. I decided to go with the B&C units in a moment of weakness for being ready tobolt something on rather than build it from scratch and feeling flush with cash. The AeroElectric list and site contains lots of discussions on how to incorporate these items into a robust, failure tolerant system. Plans are to generate enough cash to buy another set of plans... This time something aluminum! Regards- Norm Muzzy

I had a number of problems with getting my transponder to work reliably. The 2nd airplane in my hanger (a Mustang II) has also been working out some transponder bugs. Here are things that we found: Rule of thumb from the Avionics shop- No metal within 3 feet at or below the ground plane. Any metal in the path will create shadows (such as an aluminum landing gear). Use the good RG400(?) coax. They have replaced alot of the RG58 coax. Some of the Garmin transponders barely work with RG58. Use good connectors and good crimpers. I have a decent crimper, but my crimp was not successful. Theirs was. For the money, I would have them make the cable. I had them make my cables when they did the transponder certification test. The cables for the Mustang II were about $10 more for the crimped and checked version than for what I could have bought the materials. If anyone needs cables made, and can't get a reasonable price from their avionics shop, I can connect you with the folks that made my cables. I ended up putting a sheet of aluminum in the bottom of the engine cowl. It fits that extension of the scoop, and is maybe 10 inches x 15 inches? The antenna mounts down through the cowl. To remove the lower cowl, I reach in through the scoop and disconnect the cable. With the antenna in this location, I have had zero complaints about lost transponder reply, all the way out to their radar termination radius. The initial installation was intermittant, and had shadows. The transponder 'lack of reply' issue was a hassle during the first couple flights. It feels really good to know that everything is working well now. I could relocate the antenna to the front and see if it works. But it is really tough to justify moving it back when the system works so well right now. It just isn't that big a deal to unhook the antenna when changing the oil. FYI, the transponder needs to be checked every two years. Even if it is homebuilt, experimental, VFR, etc. The test box plugs into the coax line after the transponder. They verify that the encoder is reading out the right altitude (no crossed wires) within some tolerance. Then they connect the cable and put a box over the transponder antenna. They verify signal strength, frequency, and a couple other things like that. Total cost was something like $130 for the transponder test, and $70 for the materials for cables. Half of that was for the connector that fit the back of the transponder. Regards- Norm Muzzy

Here is a picture. I ran my lines on the inside, glassed over them, then filled it with pour foam. http://home.forbin.com/muzzy/cozyweb/cozyimageweb/PIC00496.jpg This picture shows how the lines went from the top of the tank into the turtleback, and exited down to the drain point. The extra line is a return fuel line, which was not used. http://home.forbin.com/muzzy/cozyweb/cozyimageweb/PIC00497.jpg

I could never figure out the reason for drilling a hole near the rear of the tank. Seems to me that once you open the inside of the tube to the fuel compartment, if there is fuel there, it will vent overboard. I ran two vents in each tank, the lines go up over the top, and one doubles back. I think this is the 'Carl Denk solution' that Marc mentioned. In this manner, if both lines on one side get plugged, the other side can still vent. Even with this system, I found pretty blue streaks on my cowl after my first big cross country, where I filled each tank and departed within 30 minutes. One thing I would do differently- I let the tubes extend into the airstream. This was tough to finish around. I would mount the tubes through a cowl lip after the plane is shaped and finished, or imbed a union so you could use an outlet nipple. Not a big deal, but the aluminum tubes on mine are a bit scruffy. Nobody's going to notice as I fly past, and I didn't build it for the judges anyway... Regards- Norm Muzzy

So how tacky is it to quote your own message? <<Marc is exactly right with the 300 to 400 pound number concept. I don't know what a realistic 'light' airplane weight truly is.>> If you look at the posted numbers, we see 1135, 1155, 1175, 1197, 1212 and 1258. The heavier numbers tend to have justification along the lines of dual batteries, electric noselifts, big tires, heavy engines, etc. I suspect that to get a plane down to 1100 pounds, you have to use a very light engine, and minimum equipment. Below that, you start weighing the plane before primer and paint, no seats, armrests, etc. Look at the Rutan planes in the museum at Oshkosh. Most of the planes that we fly have a better finish on them. So, the improvement in finish comes at a price. Most of us want some of the power accessories. -Norm

<<I think perhaps Norms numbers were a bit "tongue in cheek". A little dry sarcasm from the mid west, perhaps? How about it, Norm?>> You know, this whole bunch is drier than some type of fart. (I can't remember what type.) Of course the 5% numbers are pure BS. It was an example of how these generalizations can be miscontstrued to result in significant weight savings. Marc is exactly right with the 300 to 400 pound number concept. I don't know what a realistic 'light' airplane weight truly is. I know mine is not it, because I have a heavy engine, heavy wheels, elec noselift, etc. Also, I know that the second time around I could do a better job in minimizing the weight in my layups and even more so in the finishing process. Early on I was so hung up on the weight issue (come on! if you read the plans and take them to heart, you have to be!). I turned the excessive brass off the fuel selector valve to try save an ounce. I have helped weigh a Long EZ (with a newly received show winning finnish) that tipped the scales at 1300 pounds. And it was not a fancy leather interior either. We have seen a lot of real world planes weigh in at 1200 to 1250 pounds. I have test flown my plane (which should not be compared to any other planes in the universe, & perhaps should be called something other than a Cozy just because I actually built it myself) with a CG of 96 back to a CG of 102. I have flown up to a gross weight of 2200 pounds (honest weight, sitting on the scales). 460 pounds in the front seat, plus maybe 16 pounds of fine leather seats. With the front mounted battery in place! I can honestly say that the performance is very acceptable at each of these boundaries. Now, I don't want to fly into the corner where it is heavy and forward CG, because that is asking a lot of the front lift, fork, and wheel. And I don't care to work towards the aft CG, because that's where the boogeyman lives. As far as expanding the envelope toward heavier, I believe the plane is capable of much more. I have flown other planes at gross, and they were very uncomfortable. I have seen other experimentals flown at gross, where the pilot emerged from the flight sweating and shaky. My plane is not even close to feeling like that at 2200 pounds. Do I need more than 1000 pounds of actual usable payload? I don't think so. The quest for the 1050 pound airplane may be noble. I chose to finish my airplane and fly it, and it works very well for that. Am I going to go out and win races? No. Is it going to be uber-efficient and set new fuel economy records? No. But it is going to haul me and my family, on my typical mission, with enough capacity for plenty of fuel and a reasonable amount of baggage. Saving another 100 pounds of weight on the airframe may have been nice, but not necessary. Regards- Norm

My Cozy came in at 1197 pounds. Here is a list of what is included: Standard airframe, with long canard, all armrests, seat belts, seats IO360A3B6D with dual electronic ignition, B&C 40A alternator plus SD8 alternator, B&C starter, 13 row oil cooler, Airflow Performance (high pressure) boost pump, oil to the 5 quart line, unusable fuel 8 inch extension, 2 blade Sensinich wood prop 17Ah Odyssey battery, mounted in hell hole on front side of firewall Wilhelmson electric noselift, electric belly board, Strong pitch trim RMI uMonitor, RMI uEncoder, King xPonder, Icom Comm, PSE audio panel, Garmin 295 GPS, dual fuel guage, Alt, ASI, Navaid A/P, RCA elec AH CG came out at 111.9 (If I remember correctly) Things that are not included: Upholstery (it looks like the leather seats are going to weigh 8 pounds each, so add about 32 pounds). Wheelpants, spinner So, here's how I figure it. If I had used an 0360- save 35 pounds No noselift- save 10 pounds Cleveland 6 inch wheels, brakes, tires save 15 pounds Shorter canard- save a couple pounds plastic peel ply, 5% save 60 pounds MSG epoxy, 5% save 60 pounds I used 100% peel ply- could have saved 5% save 60 pounds Finishing- excessive paint & primer certainly save 20 pounds Hydraulic crimped hoses for oil & fuel save 5 pounds So, if I would have followed everyones advice, the plane could have weighed in at less than 940 pounds! Realistically, between the engine, noselift, and big wheels I probably have a 50 pound adder. There is probably another 10 pounds that could have been saved with a purchased set of arm rests and nose wheel cover. Better technique may have been able to save 10 pounds on filler, maybe 5 to 10 pounds on primer and paint? That primer and paint is heavy! So, maybe 1150 if I had used more conventional engine and wheels, and 1125 with improved technique. I'm satisfied with the weight. I still have better than 1000 fpm at 5000 ft climb rate with the plane ballasted to 2200 pounds. Next step is to get a better matching prop and trade that climb performance for speed! -Norm Regards- Norm

RMI also has a two flow sensor module that does the math and sends an adjusted signal to the monitor. Given the injector signal, I would think that would be close enough. Regards- Norm Muzzy

The paint has top coat on it. I plan to buff it out a bit, once I know that there aren't going to be any reworks. There was a bit of orangepeel on the wings that I colorsanded already. It certainly isn't a show winner, but it is flying. And it looks better than a lot of other planes I have seen. I am glad the upholstery isn't done yet! I would have had to start over, as I planned on putting 3 inch thick cushions in it. I have a set of leather seats that look like they will fit, but for right now I am focusing on flying the hours off and debugging the plane. If the leather seats fit, they will be a readily available, inexpensive source for all builders. I am using two inches of conforfoam, with a beach towel on top of it. I have the seat fabric that I am going to use if the leather doesn't work out. Still working on figuring out the weight and balance. Flew it today at 1800 pounds with a 96 cg. You don't flare at that cg, but I think the landings are fine. And takeoff roll is fine. Then again, I have nice long runways, a 200+ hp Lycoming, and a climb prop... Just loaded another 200 pounds of lead in the back of the pickup, this weekend it is going to work up to 2200 pounds at 98.5 cg. We'll see if it gets there! Should have the hours flown off this weekend, and then this dawg is off the leash! I don't know what the right way to finish one of these planes is. I thought I had a builder lined up to put the last finishing touches on the plane, stuff that he could make look perfect in 2 hours that would take me 3 months to even get close. But it didn't work out. Once you have it finished, I think the last parts go better. Finishing these guys by yourself is a real bear. When you are ready to start the filling part, you are about 50% done with the plane. Maybe less... All said and done, I would rather fly what I have now, than wait another three years for a show winner. And I don't think I am capable of building a show winner. The way it is, I can point to it and claim that I built this all by myself. Except for the three Brock parts (front axle, safety catch, and nose lift end attaching bracket piece), the rudder pedals from Dennis, canopy & cowls, and the normal engine stuff. Regards- Norm

<<I wish I could find Jerry Schneider's comment about a panic situation on the project which had him dancing like Mr Peepers the monkey-boy on SNL.>> I had one of those where I had the wings in the jigs all micro'd together, and then realized that the jigs were wrong. Wayne Hicks has a good description on his website. The lines going to the waterlevels are where you cut it, not lines that point to the tail of the wing. I remember making a panic call to Nat about what that squiggle line meant, and then shimming and tilting the jigs to hold everything proper. Next day picked up a set of jigs that has built perhaps 20 sets of wings, and everything worked well. Regards- Norm

I have a set of stock car scales. www.performancebodies.com In fact, they are getting drug out this weekend for max gross weight flying tests. I brought them to Oshkosh last year in case anyone wanted to play liers poker with airplane weights, but it didn't work out to use them. Maybe next year. So far, have weighed 3 Cozys, 1 Long EZ, 1 RV6, one Mustang II, and a 172. Easy to use, but a bit pricey. For max weight testing we load the plane while it is sitting on the scales. You know exactly where the weight is and how much. Regards- Norm

So you understand all of my system that I used: Cups- Clear 9oz plastic cups, from Walmart. Tapered sides. Drill press- small bench mounted one with a floor mounted step-to-go switch Mixer- Red Devil paint mixer, propellor type with outer ring, plastic Procedure: Pump several shots of epoxy into the cup. Raise cup over mixer (like when they mix a milk shake at a real milk shake place) Step on switch to spin mixer Use other hand to close up hot box. ABout 10 seconds and you are ready to go. It works great for mixing micro also. Not near as much of the stuff floating around. I liked it because it was quick, but I also felt I got a better job of mixing out of it. I would take a popsicle stick and make about 4 swirls to make sure there wasn't anything clinging to the walls. The only time when I made really large batches was on things like the wings where the cloth was already in place. Then I made a few 20 oz batches. The great majority was three or four pumps. Cleanup- After 10 or so uses there would be icicles of epoxy hanging from the mixer. (I was going to say stalagmites, but couldn't spell it, and thought maybe stalgtites was the correct term.) A pass across the bandsaw cleaned those up, or maybe the table sander. When the holes filled in completely, throw it away and start with a new one one. If you want to make them last longer, spin them in whatever you use to clean brushes with at the end of the session. Worked for me! Regards- Norm

A copy of what was posted to the maillist: <<47 months and 1 day after the big order of parts arrived, Cozy N750CZ made it's first flight! Just before 8am, with calm wind and 10 mile visibility, I lined up on Runway 30 at ALO. 8430 ft x 150 feet wide. I had done a fair amount of high speed taxi testing, and Dennis Oehlman had allowed me to do 6 T&Gs in his Cozy III the day before. The takeoff roll was brisk and straight. I did the customary takeoff bob (carryover from popping the 152s off the runway and then letting the nose back down to build speed). Climbed out and did a lazy pattern (very gentle turns) to build altitude over the airport. Departed for the practice area where I proceded to run through the controls, turns, slow flight, and nose bobbing protocol. 45 minutes after takeoff, I returned to the airport to enter a crosswind and fly a tighter pattern. Kept the speed around 100 mph until final, 90 mph across the numbers, nose in takeoff attitude, pull the power, and it settled peacefully onto the runway. Probably the best landing I have made yet! Pulled the cowls to look everything over, checked all the controls, and buttoned it back up. No concerns with cooling, the cooler outside air temps probably help that alot. No oil leaks or similar problems, I did decide to index the prop to try eliminate some of the soot. Departure lost the transponder several times, so there may be some development work involved with antenna location and/or ground plane. Second flight was a repeat of the first flight (I am basically following Marc's Protocols 'Thanks Marc!'). Did more flying with bobbing nose, more turns, and just general getting to know the plane kind of stuff. The air started getting bumpy, and there was getting to be some traffic in the area, so decided to head back to the airport. Approach lined me up for a 10 mile straight in approach, should have turned that one down and made a dog leg into a standard pattern. I didn't have a good feel for altitude and speed management like you get when you setup your position, altitude, and airspeeds in a standard pattern. Came in high and hot, and made a very un-graceful landing. Yet, it was quite tame and manageable, and turned off at the taxiway about 2/3 down the runway with ease. The plane is a pussycat and the 6 inch Clevelands stop the plane when you want it to stop. Had some lunch, decided to do some pattern work to try build some skills and techniques. Made half a dozen T&Gs, some better than others, but all very much under control. Rex Pershing (long time Cozy III driver) offered some suggestions afterwards, and I'll try to incorporate his advice next time up. Managed to kill about a gazillion bugs! The plane was a mess after the pattern work! I think I'll stay at altitude for awhile, and maybe we'll get a hard frost to knock down the bugs. OK, so now for the obligatory acceptance speech: First and foremost to 'The Wife' and kids for putting up with the process. We took about a year off in the building process to go fight robots, but there were certainly many evenings and weekends where I would disappear into the shop. To the big guys: Burt Rutan for developing an incredible set of plans and instructions for the Long EZ. I still can't believe how well written the plans are, and how efficient they are with the use of materials. And Nat, of course, for creating the Cozy and keeping the plans and support available. To Marc, his website & mail list, and most of the people on the list. The support and encouragement is a big deal. And to Rex Pershing and Dennis Oehlman, for answering a zillion questions, and taking a look at the project now and then. The T&Gs were greatly appreciated. And, I need to offer up one raspberry: To the guy at Oshkosh a couple years ago. At the builders dinner I announced that a year into the building process I had all the major glass work complete. This person made the comment 'yeah, just watch. No friends, no family...' In the four years, we were out to Battlebots 4 times, winning a Giant Nut for most aggressive and being on the TV show 4 times. I climbed Devils Tower twice with a group of college kids, and received 4 marriage proposals for my excellent camp cooking! While we are flying around the countryside, I will remember your comments, and smile, knowing that in a couple years you will be starting to sand on your plane! I will update the website in a couple days, right now the focus is on cooking off the flight tests and the hours! Marc- Please mark my plane as FLYING! Regards- Norm Muzzy>> Update: 20.9 hours on the meter and counting.

<<I got the impression that builders may be overdoing it by using the I beams and masonite.>> The TJIs (Wood "I" beams) are easy to use and dead straight. I built my table with 1/4 plywood on the bottom, and 3/4 plywood on the top, with a layer of hard tempered masonite on the top. I took the belt sander to it to clean off any epoxy, and could replace it if I wanted to. Built the table 4'x12', set it on a pair of sawhorses. Haven't moved it or adjusted it since. By a pair of 24 foot TJIs, have the lumberyard cut them to 12' to make it easier to haul. I may have had it 11'10" to allow for a piece on each end. My hot box was built from 2 inch building styrofoam, using "Great Stuff" expanding foam to glue the panels together. The front door slides in and out with a friction fit. I used a Indoor/Outdoor thermometer to monitor temperature. Wedged the outdoor probe against the resin tub with a piece of foam. Size the bulb to maintain 115 to 120 degrees temperature. Most of the time all that was required was 15 watts. Left it warm all the time when I was building. You can build things fancier, but the important thing is to build airplane parts. Put your energy into moving the project forward. This is a race to see if you can finish the plane before you burn out... Regards- Norm Muzzy

<<Where can you get lead for that price? I looked and looked and couldn't find any at ANY price.>> The company that I bought from is listed in the yellow pages under Scrap Metal- Process and Recycle. It also says- See our Ad Under Junk Dealers. These guys are making coffee money by selling to individuals rather than smelt it down themselves. I need 300 to 400 pounds of weight for gross weight tests, 200 more pounds of lead will be a good start. If anyone wants to pickup some lead ingots at Oshkosh next year, let me know. I can fire up the backyard foundry! Regards- Norm Muzzy

I picked up 100 pounds of lead from one of the salvage yards a couple weeks ago. Mostly flashing from roofs, some pipe. Also picked up a cast aluminum pot (I think it was the pressure pot from a paint spraying rig, probably a three gallon pot) to melt the lead in. Used a burner (I think from a furnace) on a propane tank to provide the heat. Melted down the lead, and skimmed off the dirt, steel, and other crud. Cast the molten lead into pop cans to make ballast chunks. These turned out to be 9 pounds each, and are easy to handle, but tend to roll around. Melted down some more lead and cast it into some cheap bread loaf pans. These make great ingots for ballast. For building purposes, I would use a cupcake pan, and put about an half inch or so of lead in each one. These work great for weighting down a piece, or holding something snug. I'm thinking about getting another 200 pounds of lead for casting, just because it is fun to cast and useful to have those weights available. Also, for gross weight testing, I would rather have big chunks of lead rather than sand bags. If you break a sandbag, it is a pain to get it all cleaned out. I paid $0.20 per pound for the salvage lead, and had better than 90% yield. There is a fair amount of dirt and crud on the salvage lead. Regards- Norm Muzzy