SAF_Zoom

Saw that ... but I think it as a ROSS PSRU and not one from Tracy... from what I gather from my reading... the Ross units are problematic to say the least...

Well that is good news... I have several thousands of these at home... all collected after first removal

Nice to ear. Do you have pictures of your installation. I would appreciate for when I get to that stage. Thx

Forget nut plates... I though of self locking nuts... no needs to discards the bolt though...

Well I value Lynn's input very much I'm just a bit strict and always stick to best practice. And this little thing we are discussing here was picked up in college... where we (aircraft maintenace technicians) are taught to... when you take one of these babies off... it goes in the garbage... and a new one goes on... Re-using them is probably ok... as Lynn's pointed out... he as never suffered a problem... buts then again its the one time you do have a problem that tend to bit you in the ass... these thing have a habit of ending up in places you don't wan't them to...

I worked for a major aircraft turbine manufacturer. I don't work on small GA planes. But best practices are just that... best practices

One can do that... but practice is to get rid of them when they come off... That's what is done on widebodies or engines (turbines). But in these situation cost if not the driving factor... safety is... I would not want to be the licenced tech (the one that signed off on the repair) that as to explanes to the NTSB that... well I used my visegrip to clamp them down a bit and they looked good... The tool marks I left... well surelly they can't be a cause for fracture/failure... But Lynn, like you said... you don't clamp down these nuts on a certified bird... so why would you do so one your experimental? Is it less prone to failure ? But I understand how one can save a few $$$ by doing so.

Thx for the infos

Hi guys, if someone as a copy of the plans (PDF format) that he could email me... it would be great. I want to compare them to the LE plan I have. I don't need the templates. Or if you have a complete set of original plans for the Cozy III and want to sell them... let me know... for a decent price I would be interested in buying them...

Just one thing... when you remove a bolt fron said nutplate... THEY ARE TO BE SCRAP.. they loose all (well not all but their intended) retention capabilities. In short they are a one shot deal... Well at least in the certified world...

Build a cover (box) with cheap styrophoam... put one or two heat lamp in it (strap to the top)... with a fan... Just an idea

Cozy Girrrl can you elaborate on the engine mounting difference between the III and IV.

Thanks you very much for the info.

Thx Lynn, How much room is there in the back of the Cozy III to reinforce the turtleback... can it be made to look similar to that of the Long EZ… Maybe place a longer split canopy like some of the EZs on a Cozy III and modify the turtleback accordingly? I would appreciate if someone as the chapters of the plan that relates to the fuselage of the Cozy III available in electronic format (PDF) so that I can look them over.. and see if the Cozy III turtle back can be modified and still be structurally sound. The more I read the info a gather... the more I'm leaning toward a Cozy III with a modified fuselage... not its shape but rather the way it is put to getter/reinforced (see above). And before people start saying the engine is going to fall off, this would be done after careful reengineering of the structure (if at all possible)... Also, what is the span of the Canard of the Cozy III compared to the one of the LE… and are they both Ronzc…

So the Coxy III is 39-40" at mid shoulder... and the back seat is the same as the LE... right ?

To go back to one of my original questions: I know the LE fuselage is 24" wide at the instruments panel and the back seat is 16" (or 18"??? I'm at work now)... but what about the Cozy III and IV... I believe the Cozy IV to be 42" at the instrument panel but what about the rear seat? And is the Cozy III, 42" at the instrument panel and the same in the back seat as the LE? I would like to be able to decide between the 3.

Exceeding the critical angle of attack of the main wing... not dropping below a certain airspeed

Not a deep stall.... not even a F-4 will get out of it...

What about a single (or maybe a pair) of of vertical "stabs" below the aft cowling that can act as a speed brake (picture the rudder airbrake of the space shuttle... its split down the middle to act as a brake) (basically picture one or two winglets below the cowl).... This could maybe (and its just an assumption) pitch the nose down... you would get something that looks like the ventral fins mentioned before but installed in a very steep angle... when the airbrake is retracted... it (they) could act as a stator... cleaning up the airflow to the prop... but when the airbrake is deployed it would hopefully pitch the nose down... Other benefit... no more tipping on the prop as they should be long enough to hit the ground before the prop... they would also prevent the prop from hitting the groung on over rotarion of "stalled landing"... But I think they would cause lot more problems that they would solve...

Yes this is very true... But what about a WHAT IF scenario...

Hi Steve, I’m no aeronautical engineer but my first observation is that this needs to be aft of the main wing… So I don’t think that it would work on a canard with no tail boom… But what about installing retractable spoiler type devices on the canard to destroy its lift in case of a deep stall? Would that bring the nose down in case of an emergency? I don’t know…. And have no idea how one could fabricate such spoilers...

Cirrus... I know they use what is discussed above... (embeded mesh with a 4 inch metal strip along the fus if I recollect correctly).

EDIT Needed 10 caracters

By indicating that he would not enforce his rights.... he did...

Well if the ownwer of an intellectual property indicate that he has NO intention of enforcing is rights AND that he has acted accordingly in the past regarding such intellectual property... Then by all means proceed... So let's get to work... they seem to be NO grey areas left.... As Marc indicated Terf as no right to the intellectual property other than to distribute the material. If you rewrite significant it then its not the same material... Finally with all the builder website out there all picture can be updated (with the builders permission... if they copyrighted their pictures...). But for thing to be made in the best spirit builders should always be ask before you "borrow" their work...