From: DMDS%mimi@magic.itg.ti.com Date: Tue, 2 Jan 96 09:23:12 CST Subject: Re: Cozy MKIV vs. Cosy III wing differences From: David de Sosa DMDS Subj: Re: Cozy MKIV vs. Cosy III wing differences Over the holidays I had a chance to compare both sets of Cozy plans and have found out that ALL wing templates are IDENTICAL in dimension for each plan version. I was able to verify this by overlaying templates from each set of plans and holding them up to the light. However, the B.L. locations are different for each set of corresponding templates as follows: Cozy MKIV Dwg no. Cosy III Dwg no. B.L. 31 M3, M24 same as B.L. 23 A1B, A16 B.L. 67.5 M23, M24 same as B.L. 55.5 A15, A16 B.L. 118.25 M23, M24 same as B.L. 106.25 A15, A16 B.L. 169 M3 , M23 same as B.L. 157 A1B, A15 Incidently, the lower and upper winglet templates are also identical for each set. >From this listing it is apparent that MKIV wing strakes extend eight inches further from the fuselage centerline than the Cosy III's. Also, since the final B.L. template is not eight but twelve inches further out than the Cosy III's, the MKIV wings are actually four inches longer than the Cosy III's. So, from a dimensional standpoint, the only difference between the two sets of wings is the extra four inches between the first two wing templates of each wing set. I'm not sure why the templates Dick Finn borrowed did not match the MKIV plans unless perhaps they were Long-Eze templates. My wings appear to have been built using Cosy III plans (I'm still verifying this). If so, I'm not sure what the impact of 4" shorter wings would be. Higher wing loading for sure. However, they should still mate up with the wing strakes just fine since the templates are the same. David -******* ORIGINAL MSG # 02276163 RECEIVED ON 12/19 AT 15:51 FOLLOWS *******- To: DMDS From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com dick.finn@fnb.sprint.com Subject: Cozy Mark IV Wings ********** Via: MIMI 2.2 Gateway at Magic (TID DA586502 dated Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:18:00 -0500) From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com X400-Received: by /PRMD=FNB/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:18:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=FNB/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:18:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=FNB/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:18:00 -0500 X400-Received: by /PRMD=FNB/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/; Relayed; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 15:18:00 -0500 X400-Originator: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:; X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=FNB/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/;Tue Dec 19 15:18:45 199501] X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Content-Identifier: Cozy Mark IV Win To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Subject: Cozy Mark IV Wings A short while back there was a brief exchange of messages about differences between the Mark IV Wing and the Cozy III/Long-Eze. Wing. Bottom line was that some people seemed to think they were the same. I had an experience whith borrowed templates where I found that they did not match the Mark IV drawings. I don't honestly remember where the discussion ended but believe that there wer e still questions. In Nat Puffers latest newsletter he specifically notes that there are differences. (20% thicker spar cap, 4" added to the root, etc.). I suggest everyone read this, especially the fellow who indicated that he had built his wings using the Long-Eze templates. They won't match the spar and may be to weak on the spar cap. I guess the lesson is to not believe everything we are told by others without double checking against the plans. Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 09:11:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re[2]: Cozy MKIV vs. Cosy III wing differences David & others, The templates I used were indeed from a Long-eze. That certainly accounts for the differences. As mentioned in my earlier post, Nat Puffer discusses differences in his latest newsletter. While I don't have a copy here I suspect that your findings mirror his comments (i.e. only differences are in the placement of the templates at different Butt Lines. In a forum at OSH last Summer Rutan indicated that there is little or no lift provided by the strakes (this surprisaed me but he should know). I would guess that the extra length on the inboard portion wouldn't have much effect. It might be worth checking with Nat on the effect of the four inchs on the wing itself. I also remember Nat saying that you could use the templates from the Cozy III (although I thought he had said the Long-eze templates and Cozy templates were the same). Perhaps there is not much affect. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Cozy MKIV vs. Cosy III wing differences Author: DMDS%mimi@magic.itg.ti.com at INTERNET Date: 1/2/96 10:31 AM From: David de Sosa DMDS Subj: Re: Cozy MKIV vs. Cosy III wing differences Over the holidays I had a chance to compare both sets of Cozy plans and have found out that ALL wing templates are IDENTICAL in dimension for each plan version. I'm not sure why the templates Dick Finn borrowed did not match the MKIV plans unless perhaps they were Long-Eze templates. Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 17:56:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Wings & Ailerons Hello Everyone, I'm on the final stages of building my wings and thought I'd pass on a few words of wisdom (????). This has been one of the most frustrating chapters in that after spending a long time working on one wing and finally getting toward the end of the chapter, the plans tell you to go back to page one and start over for the other wing. At least with the other chapters your done when you reach the last page. Yes, I knew that I had to do two wings but it was still a bit discouraging to have to start over on page one. Suggestions: 1. Build the wing forms out of 5/8" or larger plywood. Particle board can break when yot try to break off the Bondo. One of my forms fell over and actually cracked necesitating a repair. 2. Use Formica or aluminum for the templates. Its thin, easy to work and will produce minim,al inaccuracies when hot wiring. Aluminum is best but Formica is easier to shape. 3. Use a laser pointer rather than string to align the forms. String sags. So do I for that matter. 4. Cut all the templates (canard, wings, winglets, etc) at thesame time. In the long run it will minimize the effort. 5. Watch where you put the seams when you pile the foam blocks up prior to hot wiring. Keep the seams as far as possible from the edges. 6. Lay up extra rovings on the spar cap to bring them flush with the wing top if the trough is cut too low. 7. Sand the wing smooth before laying up the glass on the wing. It will save significant time in finishing. 8. I used a 12 fr long 1 x 12 to jig the forms for the wing. I put lag screws through each two feet along both edges and used them as leveling screws. I bondoed the screws to the basement floor and by adjusting the height of the nuts I was able to get the board exactly level. The forms were bondoed to this board and aligned with the laser pointer. 9. I ended up using a hole saw that was filed down to the correct diameter (you have to knock off the set on the teeth) to drill the wing attach bolt holes. It worked significantly better then the spot facer. 10. I suggest making the attach bolt access cutouts deeper then called for in the plans. If you hit even a little off center when trying to drill the holes you may find that you don't have enough room to squeeze the socket between the bolt and bottom or top of the access cut out. 11. Get a Smart Level (digital readout). I got one for at OSH and used it to level the wings and spar before drilling the attach bolt holes. It works great. 12. Using the templates mark the W.L. on the leading edge of the wing. I forget the exact W.L. but it is marked on the templates. Snap a chalk line between the two ends and level that line. They don't tell you this in the plans but you need to do it to get the right dihederal. 13. Put two level blocks on each wing while it is in the jigs. This will save a lot of effort if you accidently knock one off. Nat Puffer mentioned this to me in a phone call on another subject. Great idea. 14. Mark the seams on the wing (between blocks and ends of ailerons) before skinning the wings. Use a marker that will show through the glass after cure. This will ease locating reference points when you need to cut out the ailerons. 15. Micro the torque tube to the aluminum plate that you rivet the hinges to. before installing the aluminum plate in teh aileron. You need to measure carefully to get the exact position. Once the micro has set up you can install the assembly in the aileron and have everything perfectly aligned. 16. Before glassing the wings use stiff micro to fill depressions, knicks, holes, and the trough you cut in for the rudder cable. Let it set a little then go back and put some more stiff micro in where it settles out. This will minimize the finishing later and help prevent any air pockets. Micro the whole surface and glass. 17. Carve out the root area a little deeper then you think necessary in the area around the aileron torque tube (the plans call for depressions but it is unclear how deep to make them). Test the hardware in the area before laying up the glass. Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:44:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Aerocad, and a thought on Ailerons I was a little confused by the message on Aerocad. Are they out of business completely or just no longer licensed by Nat? Jeff Russell and his dad are good people and make some real good stuff (I bought their rudder pedals) and I'd hate to see them go under. Some other thought as I continue merrily on my way mounting my ailerons. 1. Try using Clecos rather than screws to hold the ailerons hinges on the wing while you do the fitting of the torque tubes. You will have to use a pad of washers to act as a spacer on top of the wing to get the cleco to pull the hinge tight. I found it makes mounting and dismounting trivial and can be used right up to the last steps. 2. Scoop out the depression in the wing root a little deeper then you think is necessary before glassing the rib. You will need the extra space for the control linkages. 3. Order the parts for Chap. 16 (Control Linkages) at the same time that you order the Brock parts for the Wings and ailerons. You need some of the Chapter 16 parts to complete the aileron linkages that are attached to the wings. I'll be sending in an order soon. For that matter, order all the Brock stuff for the whole plane now. Thats the only way to avoid the continual monster mark ups. 4. Double check your Wicks/AS&S order for the aileron torque tubes to make sure you order enough (6161 T6 .75/.058 aluminum tube). You need two pieces of about 38" for the torque tube. The plans have been modified to call for two 48" pieces. Order these and don't cut the two ten inch A10 pieces from one of them (Careful use of algebraic and arithmetic principles should have told me that 48" - (2 x 10") is less then 38"). Despite this I ended up with one 48" piece and one 28" piece. OOPS! Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 with SMTP (MailShare 1.0b8); Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:19:03 -0500 From: "Daryl H. Lueck" Subject: AeroCad's Quick build Kits Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:10:47 -0000 I have used AeroCad's Quick Build canard and wing kits. I'm currently = working on the wings, all set to glass the bottom of the right wing. = The canard is done, waiting to be attached to the fuselage. I can't say = enough about the ease of building using AeroCad's kits. The canard went = together quite easily and the wings are easier. =20 Jeff supplies video tapes and mini-plans to help you through the = process. I also ordered the molded main spar, matched drilled to the = wing spars. It was nice to read about the problems with drilling the = attach holes, knowing I don't have to deal with that problem. Daryl Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 16:39:32 -0600 From: Mark Turner Subject: Molded Spars and Quick Building Times Someone posted a question regarding the 'Quick Build' wings used on the AeroCanard... I talked with Jeff and got his response to this question. Also, AeroCad can now be reached at aerocad@windev.com until they get setup with a local internet provider... ================================================================ In response to a question on what's the difference from building a set of wings from plans vs AeroCad's quick build version. The plans built method requires you to build wing jigs, jig table, hot wire templates, and a hot wire tool. The problems we found with the wing jigs were 1.) that the cores didn't quite fit (jigs were oversized to the core) and 2.) that the trailing edge had no jig or support to keep it from scalloping while skinning. When bonding your hot-wired leading edge cores after your shear web has been made, you must rely on jigs that are oversized to accurately bond the leading edge back on. A mismatch at this point could cause spar caps to be incorrect in thickness. If your spar cap is too thick, you must add a considerable amount of filler to correct the error. This adds unnecessary weight. Hot wiring is not a hard job, but there is some techniques required to give accurate cores. We have heard of many builders, after hot wiring their cores, finding out that they had made two rights instead of a right and a left. This is not hard to do as we have done it ourselves. If this mistake is made, it will cost you more time and material to correct. Dealing with a jig table made from wood, it constantly expands and contracts and gets out of level. The method we have gone to uses molded spars that are the correct outer shape and structurally complete, pre-cut foam cores (leading edge cores and trailing edge cores). We use no jigs only using aluminum I-beams that are designed to jig the wings after the cores have been bonded to the spar. By having molded spars that are correct in their outer shape, you can build your wings using them as a straight firm jig essentially putting them together as follows. On day one, sand the spars for bonding, elevate the spar on the root end with the L.E. up and approximately 3 feet higher than the outboard end of wing spar. This can be done with on saw horse and a 5 gallon bucket. Level the hard points side to side and bond L.E. cores using slurry between the joints plumbing the level lines on the cores. Both wings can be done at the same time. This should take no more than 2 to 4 hours. Walk away and let cure. On day two, flip wing spars over, and set L.E. wing tip in a piece of core casing on the saw horse and the root end on the bucket. Again, level the hard points side to side and also check the plumb of the L.E. Bond the T.E. cores using slurry between the joints again plumbing the level lines on the cores. Both wings can be done at the same time. This should take no more than 2 to 4 hours. Let cure. On day three you now have your complete wing shape. Place one wing on two I-beams that are on saw horses and level the level lines on the cores by adjusting height on one side of each saw horse. Prepare the bottom side of the wing with slurry and skin with UNI per plans (we use TRIAXIAL skins which is three plies knitted together to make one ply). This have been used successfully on all Velocity kits. The good points on the TRIAX are, it can all be laid up in one ply giving the ability of mixing two large batches of resin that lets you quickly wet out the wing skin (approximately 30 minutes). The second point is that since it is knitted the fibers stay straight and the correct orientation if handled correctly. The bad points are that you will have too much glass over the ailerons that will have to be sanded down removing 80 percent of the top layer of glass so that your ailerons will balance when you get to them. Enough said on TRIAX. The use of I-beams on the trailing edge assures straightness instead of the scalloping you get with jigs. The process continues doing the bottom of the other wing, letting both wings cure at least two days. Then turn them over, install rudder conduit, slurry, and skin as you did the bottoms. This whole process can be done in about 6 or 7 days. We have a video that shows the process in more detail which we sell for $15.00 plus $3.00 for shipping if you would like to see. Jeff Russell AeroCad, Inc. Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:36:52 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: molded spars On Tue, 6 Feb 1996, Scott Christensen wrote: I am currently building my wings per plans. It is a long tedious process and can be either enjoyable or frustrating depending on how much of a hurry you are in. I also was able to help a friend last year at sun n fun who has purchased Jeff's Aerocanard build his quickbuild wings, Took a couple of days The reason I finally went with the plans is that I figured it saved me a little over $600.00 to do so. Otherwise if you have the money and no time call Jeff today... BW > Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 09:41:05 -0600 > From: Scott Christensen > To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: molded spars > > In letter from AeroCad: > > We found out how much easier it was to build the wings and > > canard using molded spars. No jigs or jig table were necessary > > to build these parts and in two weeks the wings were finished. > > Wow, what a difference from the 4 months it took on the Cozy > > wings. > > Would anyone like to explain/comment? > > Scott > > > From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: RE: molded spars Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:31:44 -0600 I built the AeroCad wings from their kit at their facility. It was very EZ. We were done in four days with both main wings. I then built up the winglets per plans. When I was building the wings I stayed with Jeff & Katherine in their geodesic dome house. Way cool! They are really neat people and are very honest. Highly recommended. Jeff & the AeroCanard will be at Sun-N-Fun. There's a picture of my Cozy IV tub with the AeroCanard top on it in our homepage. I also have a trip report there of my roadtrip and stay with them- http://rampages.onramp.net/~sidl/hangar.html Sid Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:21:27 -0500 From: CozyBldr@aol.com Subject: Re: molded spars Scott Christensen writes: >In letter from AeroCad: >> We found out how much easier it was to build the wings and >> canard using molded spars. No jigs or jig table were necessary >> to build these parts and in two weeks the wings were finished. >> Wow, what a difference from the 4 months it took on the Cozy >> wings. > >Would anyone like to explain/comment? > >Scott > > I used Aerocad's premolded wing spars and precut cores. The procedure involves sanding the spar, microing the cores on, jigging the wing level using 2 aluminum I-beams and glassing. It went quickly and I made two straight wings in a short amount of time. One spar had a slight bend in it that was easily taken out by weighing one end down with a fulcrum at the center of the bend, securing it in place with bondo and attaching the cores. The whole process was easy and quick. Considering Featherlite charges $1200 for the cores, Aerocad's price of $1800 gives you the completed spars for $300 each. Not a bad price considering the work that goes into the spars. Paul Stowitts Cozy Mark IV #200 From: "Dalrymple, Mark J" Subject: WINGS BUILT PER PLANS vs QUICK BUILT WINGS Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 12:52:00 PST AFTER REVIEWING SEVERAL POSTINGS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, I THOUGHT I WOULD MENTION A FEW ISSUES ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT. IF PLAN ON BUILDING THE QUICK BUILT WINGS, YOU SHOULD ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS!! 1. HAVE THESE WINGS BEEN THROUGH FLUTTER TESTING FOR ALL CG AND GROSS WEIGHT OPTIONS THAT THIS AIRCRAFT CAN FLIGHT IN? 2. WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE DESIGN LOAD THAT THESE WINGS ARE DESIGN TO? 3. WHAT WAS THE ULTIMATE LOAD APPLIED TO THE WING BEFORE IT BEFORE IN THE LAB TEST SETUP! ALSO NOTE THE LANDING GEAR IN OUR PLANS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED TO THE FAA'S FAR REQUIREMENT FOR A 9 G DROP TEST (I BELIEVE IT IS 9 G's). THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDRESS FOR THE PLANS BUILT COZY, LONG EZE AND ETC .... OTHER RUTAN DESIGNS. BUT HAS IT BEEN PROVEN WITH THE QUICK BUILD ITEMS???? I BASE QUESTIONS FROM MY JOB EXPERIENCE AT McDONNELL DOUGLAS AS A FLIGHT TEST ENGINEER. I HAVE ALREADY ASKED THESE QUESTIONS. MARK DALRYMPLE (IN SHORT "MARK FROM ORANGE") PLAN #361 WORKING ON CHP 11 AND 14. Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:41:28 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: WINGS BUILT PER PLANS vs QUICK BUILT WINGS (fwd) My two bits for tonight. Having seen both types of construction I would have to vouch for the ease of construction of Aerocads wings. I almost built them myself except for my "scotch" nature. As for their durability....all the Velocity's flying have them, Danny Mayer did conduct testing on them and with the spar premade the chance of constructing the cores mis aligned is slim to none (don't forget this is production built where consistancy is expected) also if you look at the layups on Nats per plans wing the Triax adds another layer to the bottom skin and is consuistant in the angle of cut. Sincerely BW It's an indivigual choice - Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 08:41:33 -0500 From: Wschertz@aol.com Subject: Re: ADF and FM Antennas Daryl Lueck Wrote: >(I'm building the AeroCad quick build wings), Daryl, since you are building the AeroCad wings, how do you find the instructions/assembly of the wings to go, i.e. are the video tapes useful instructions? Are you using the tri-axial cloth or using 3 layers of bid? Does AeroCad also supply any written instructions onthe basic installation-or just the video tapes? OR, did you just get the materials from AeroCad and are building them in the same way that Cozy instructions call for? Thanks, Bill Schertz Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:20:53 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: longer ailerons Jim Hann writes: > As an old model airplane tinkerer I did this on them, how much of > an increase(improvement??) do you see. I remember Dick Rutan > saying that he enlarged the ailerons on Sh*t Hot (his blue Long) > but that it really didn't roll any faster than the prototype. The roll in the AeroCanard has never been timed yet. I can tell you when getting out of a standard Cozy and then jumping into my airplane you can tell a roll change. High speed its not as much as slow speed Dick's long EZ has longer and not deeper ailerons like we have. We used the Berkut and Velocity dimensions for this. I realy liked the roll in the Berkut the best. The RG will also make a big change in roll. The fixed gear to the RG Velocity showed me that. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:43:25 -0700 From: harvey3@ix.netcom.com (Neil K. Clayton) Subject: Maintaining correct chord length Getting ready to cut wing foam... After the raw wing foam is cut, the plans call for cutting them in half to build the sheer web. Then the leading edge is plonked back on to sandwich the sheer web "inside" the section. Doesn't the thickness of the glass sheer web increase the effective chord length of the wing? Did anyone take account of it? Maybe the thickness of the hot-wire cut is equal to the additional thickness of the web? Thx, guys. Neil From: "Volk, Ray" Subject: RE: Maintaining correct chord length Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:49:00 PDT Neil writes- >After the raw wing foam is cut, the plans call for cutting them in half >to build the sheer web. Then the leading edge is plonked back on to >sandwich the sheer web "inside" the section. > >Doesn't the thickness of the glass sheer web increase the effective >chord length of the wing? Did anyone take account of it? Maybe the >thickness of the hot-wire cut is equal to the additional thickness of >he web? Thx, guys. Neil Neil My name is Ray Volk and I happen to be just past the point you are on my wings, laying up wing spar caps and bottom skin. I have no idea who you are except that your name is Neil, since my e-mail system does no give me any header information, so I'll just reply to the whole group. I went through this same thought process a couple of weeks ago. I may be "all wet", and probably am, but in my opinion the shear web thickness is insignificant in this area. For one thing the thickness is not the same throughout the full span of the wing, ie 2 layer on the outboard end, 4 layers in the middle, and 6 layer inboard. If I remember correctly UNI is .009" thick per layer, which equates to approx. .018 " outboard building to .054" inboard. If you try to correct this with a sanding block , or some other technique, unless your a lot better than I am you will create a much larger error than your trying to correct. For what it's worth. Ray Volk e-mail rvolk@space.honeywell.com Cozy #426 ---------- Date: 11 Apr 1996 18:05:50 -0700 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: Maintaining correct chord l Neil, I've have looked at this issue under a microscope and there are errors; I don't have my plans in front of me but there is a drawing that shows the top view of the complete wing with chord length and % thickness. I entered this data into AutoCad and found the numbers to be right on for the most part. BUT... I entered the data from my actual wing templates (measured with scale) and found differences. All templates that required me to glue them together were too short! the largest error is at bl 67.5??? .350", but it is pretty much on in thickness. The added shear web in this area will not make up the difference. The other issue is the center span template leading edge (with all trailing edges aligned) does not intersect a line drawn from the leading edge of 67.5 to leading edge of the wingtip, it falls short by about .150". This will lead to more sanding later on. Solution- I borrowed another set of templates and carefully taped them down to insure the chord length was right and then traced them. Hopefully I won't be spending as MUCH time sanding..... judd stewart Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 16:56:00 -0400 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re: COZY: boring bit help George, There was a long discussion relating to match drilling the holes a few months back. I think it is probably in the archives. In any case, I used a hole saw on a long 1/4" steel rod. I knocked the set off the teeth by chucking the saw in my drill press and holding a file against it while the saw spun. Every few seconds I would test drill a hole in a piece of wood and fit the bushing. When I got a good fit I match drilled the holes in the wing and spar. Other fellows tried different techniques with good success. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 DICK.FINN@FNB.SPRINT.COM ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: COZY: boring bit help Author: owner-cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com at INTERNET Date: 5/13/96 11:26 AM Does anyone know of a good tool (and source) for drilling the wing attach holes ? spar to winging. I almost remember reading about a good one, but can't locate it. thank you, George Graham ADDR: george.graham@airsep.com Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 08:44:45 +0000 From: Eric Westland Subject: COZY: Wing Wiring There is a hole in the wing where the antenna wires exit and enter the spar. I was getting ready to drill this hole in the end of the spar last night, but hesitated because if you line the holes up, the one in the end of the spar is opposite where the lower wing attach bolt head will be. It's tough enough putting the wings on and getting a wrench on the bolts without having the cables in the way. So, have others cut a hole in the end of the spar closer to the center and routed their cables with a joggle or just drilled the hole so they both line up? If there is a joggle, has chaffing of the cables been a concern and if so, what is the simple solution to this? Thanks, Eric Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:07:06 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Wiring Eric Westlend writes: >The one in the end of the spar is opposite where the lower wing attach >bolt head will be. It's tough enough putting the wings on and getting >a wrench on the bolts without having the cables in the way. So, >have others cut a hole in the end of the spar closer to the center and >routed their cables with a joggle or just drilled the hole so they >both line up? If there is a joggle, has chaffing of the cables > been a concern and if so, what is the simple solution to this? We drill a 1" dia. hole in the end of the main spar between the two inside hard points as close to the inside aft shearweb. I also drilled a 1" hole at the lower aft corner of the inside bulkheads. Insert a piece of tubing (color shower curtain rod cover, Walmart or K-mart brand) for a electral conduit. If the conduit is mounted further away from the aft shearweb, it will be harder to install the wing washers and nuts on the 1/2" bolts. We mount the wings using only 2 people and 2 saw horses. With the aid of the wiring conduits 1) Get the wing close to the end of the strake end and sit on saw horses. 2) Insert strobe and coax cables in conduit. 3) Make sure wing bolts have washers on an are sticking out. 4) Lift wing and make sure all wires go into conduit without pinching between wing and strake. Push wing bolts in main spar bushings. Let hang on bolts. 5) install nuts. With this kind of plastic tubing chaffing of the coax and wiring should not be a problem. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 01:14:59 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Wiring In a message dated 96-05-29 18:10:39 EDT, Jeff Russell writes: > Insert a >piece of tubing (color shower curtain rod cover, Walmart or K-mart brand) >for a electral conduit. If the conduit is mounted further away from the >aft shearweb, it will be harder to install the wing washers and nuts on >the 1/2" bolts. Shower curtain rod covers, of all things! I just spend an hour yesterday at the local home improvement warehouse looking for cheap, lightweight plastic tubing to serve as wiring conduit. The best I could find was only 3/4" in diameter, which is too small for what I need as fuselage conduits. After reading the above, I made a quick trip to KMart, and there it was, lightweight, 6 ft long electrical conduits for only 99 cents each. I'd never knew shower curtain rod covers existed before today. Thanks Jeff! Now for a question. In my Long-EZ, I have a Rocky Mountain MicroMonitor for engine instrumentation, plus the usual strobes, radios and heavy battery cables. I've been trying to figure out how to best route all the electrical wiring to prevent electrical gremlins. No built in electrical conduits in the Long. The wiring has to go in conduits along the fuselage sides. I've heard that the engine instrumentation *may* be affected by electrical interference from the radio coax when the mike is keyed. It can also be effected by the heavy current loads in the starter and alternator B lead wires, and mag P-leads. The radios can also be affected by these same heavy hitters. With all this in mind, I'm planning to run the heavy current carriers along the right side along with the mag P-leads and strobe wiring, and put the instrumentation and radio coax along the left side in the same conduit. I understand that the engine sensors are working with microvolts, and it doesn't take much electrical interference to screw up the readings. All instrumentation wiring is in shielded twisted pair cable that's grounded at the instrument per Rocky Mountain instructions. What do you think? Will I have a problem with the instrumentation wiring in the same conduit as the antenna coax? Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ Builder Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 20:39:37 -0400 From: Jim Hocut Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Wiring At 06:41 PM 6/1/96 -0400, StetsonE@aol.com wrote: >..... With all this in mind, I'm >planning to run the heavy current carriers along the right side along with >the mag P-leads and strobe wiring, and put the instrumentation and radio coax >along the left side in the same conduit. I understand that the engine >sensors are working with microvolts, and it doesn't take much electrical >interference to screw up the readings. All instrumentation wiring is in >shielded twisted pair cable that's grounded at the instrument per Rocky >Mountain instructions. What do you think? Will I have a problem with the >instrumentation wiring in the same conduit as the antenna coax? > Problem? Maybe, maybe not, just depends (we call this M-E-S Mysterious Electrical Sh__). Running shielded pair is a good idea, just remember to ground it at one end and one end only. I've seen all sorts of screwy stuff in industrial plants due to improper grounding of shielded wire. Grounding both ends is just as bad as not grounding it at all. Off the top of my head I'd say that all shields should be electrically tied together at the instrument panel (i.e. - ground the shield to the instrument/radio it goes to and then tie all the instrument/radio chassis together.) I can't say for absolute certain that this will prevent all problems, but from my experience working with industrial instrumentation it's the way to go. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Date: 04 Jun 96 09:04:26 EDT From: Ken Miller <75202.3245@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: aileron gap seals Hi, guys. My discovery may be redundant to some of you, so bear with me. I recently was involved in the conversion of a Long-EZ from an O-235 to a 320. We also moved the brakes to the front, electrified the speedbrake, and other upgrades. The plane was on the nosegear for work on top of the engine, someone grabbed the trailing edge of the wing to hoist himself up, and the nose, although weighted with 50 lbs of shot, started up. It didn't go all the way over though. He unfortunately grabbed the aileron to stop it, twisting the inboard tube right out of the aileron. No big deal, I repaired it for him. Before I replaced the aileron, I did a balance check.. the trailing edge hung over an INCH LOW from level. I couldn't believe it, so I pulled the opposite aileron and found the same problem. I discovered the ailerons were out of demension (narrow) from the plans fore to aft. I used the Cozy plans and replaced the small rod with the larger one, and moved it forward to plans demensions. This solved the balance problem, but now I discovered the aileron closeout spar wasn't deep enough to clear the counterbalance. I then had to grind out both closeouts and deepen them to provide adequate trailing edge closeout. Bummer. On the first test flight, we discovered the airplane had developed a pronounced left roll. I had, several months ago, removed the roll trim springs and trimmed it level with rudder to help the Navaid autopilot sensitivity. It also handles nicer, but that's another story. We shimmed one wing with a thick washer, but that wasn't enough. I suspected something I did with the ailerons was the culprit. I got under the airplane and discovered that the gap between the lower counterbalance was wider on one side than the other. The right side was about 1/4 inch and uneven, and the other was 1/8 and pretty straight. Just for fun, I used gap seal tape and taped the gap ON TOP of the ailerons, removed the shim, and went flying. Guess what? No more roll. Improved handling and crisper roll rate. 10 kts+ (kidding). I am in process of closing up the gap on the right side to match the left, but I suspect that if I am careful and get both perfect, I could remove the gap tape. I also taped MY Long's ailerons and got rid of MY very slight left roll my bird had acquired since repaint (I also went to the larger rods). We have since taped two more Longs (Neil Hunter's Big EZ and a Cozy) with good results both times. I thought some of you might be interested in trying it yourself. Be sure and treat that first flight after taping like the First first flight in case you get different results. Be careful. Ken Date: Wed, 05 Jun 1996 11:00:32 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: COZY: Aileron gaps Ken Miller Wrote: >Subject: aileron gap seals & rolling fix >On the first test flight, we discovered the airplane had >developed a pronounced LEFT roll. We shimmed one wing with >a thick washer, but that wasn't enough. I suspected something >I did with the ailerons was the culprit. I got under the >airplane and discovered that the gap between the lower >counterbalance was wider on one side than the other. >The RIGHT side was about 1/4 inch and uneven, and the other >was 1/8 and pretty straight. Just for fun, I used gap seal >tape and taped the gap ON TOP of the ailerons, removed the >shim, and went flying. Guess what? No more roll. >Improved handling and crisper roll rate. If I am reading this correctly, if your airplane tends to roll to the left? You could change the gap at the right aileron to larger opening and it could stop the left roll? For those of you that are flying and have shimmed your wings to stop a roll, this might look much better than a miss-match from the wing to strake intersection??? I think I would try the gap seal tape first but this will give another alternate to shimming wings with washers. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:31:15 +0100 From: Pilot@sisna.com (Dave Chapman) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Wiring >There is a hole in the wing where the antenna wires exit and enter >the spar. I was getting ready to drill this hole in the end of the >spar last night, but hesitated because if you line the holes up, the >one in the end of the spar is opposite where the lower wing attach >bolt head will be. It's tough enough putting the wings on and getting >a wrench on the bolts without having the cables in the way. So, have >others cut a hole in the end of the spar closer to the center and >routed their cables with a joggle or just drilled the hole so they >both line up? If there is a joggle, has chaffing of the cables been a >concern and if so, what is the simple solution to this? > >Thanks, > >Eric Eric, I avoided this problem completely by routing the antenna wires out the front of the strake and directly into the cockpit. I put a channel in the leading edge of the strakes when I built them and the wire exits the wing and feeds directly into this tunnel (through BNC type connectors). In the cockpit the wire goes down and into the armrest and forward to the rear (front) of the the instrument panel! Dave Chapman (Pilot@sisna.com) "This is not a sport, not a business, USHGA #5742 not an ego outlet, but a spiritual calling to Park City, Utah set one's soul free by flight...." (801) 647-0319 http://www.sisna.com/users/Pilot/Pilot.html Cozy 3 on gear, with the engine on, in other words, 80% done and 80% to go... **************************************************************************** 186,000 miles a second, not just a good idea......its the law **************************************************************************** Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:18:40 -0700 From: Neil Clayton Subject: COZY: Dimension prob re ailerons Hi everyone...can anyone throw some light on this pls, before I start cutting into my wing to correct it; The aileron operating shaft (A10) doesn't line up with the hole cut for it in the wing root. Chap 19, Page 14 says A10, the aileron operating shaft that imbeds into the root end of the aileron, is ~5.9" from the TE. But sheet M-24 shows the centre line of the hole in the aileroan root template ~7.5" from the TE. Result...the shaft hits solid glass instead of sitting happily in the centre of the hole when you try to fit the two together. Anyone else have this prob? Is it a drg error, or did I do a boo-boo??? Thx Neil. From: "Volk, Ray" Subject: COZY: Re: Aileron Dimensions Prob. Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:40:00 -0400 Neil I just completed chapter 19 so I thought I would try to answer your concern. >>Chap 19, Page 14 says A10, the aileron operating shaft that imbeds into the root end of the aileron, is ~5.9" from the TE. But sheet M-24 shows the center line of the hole in the aileron root template ~7.5" from the TE. I think you are confusing the two templates used at BL 67.5. You are correct when you say that the center of the hole in the "aileron root template" is 7.5" from the TE but that is not where A10 will connect. A10 will connect at approx 1.5" aft of the center of the hole in the aileron root template. If you lay the "Torque tube cut out template" over the top of the "aileron root template", lining up the TE, you will see that A10 will come out roughly in the center of the "torque tube cut out template" and ~5.9 " from the TE. of the "aileron root template, which is as it should be. It is true that tolerances are close and if you get A10 mounted a little to high on the aileron, A10 and its mounting bolt will contact the foam and glass at full up aileron. Hope this helps Ray Volk Cozy #426 Work e-mail rvolk@FL51mail.space.honeywell.com Home e-mail dj76550@goodnet.com From: "Dalrymple, Mark J" Subject: COZY: RUDDER CABLE ROUTING FOR HIDDEN BELLCRANKS Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 17:05:00 PDT HI EVERYONE, I am ready to route the Nylaflow tubing for the Hidden Bellcrank Rudders and I have some questions. Referring to the modification plans for the Long Eze installation, the plans state that the tubing be routed close to and forward of the outboard aileron tip, parallel to the trailing edge and terminate at the wing tip 1.2 inches forward of the trailing edge (in a nut shell). The sketch of the installation shows a straight long shot from the inboard end to the wing tip end. The sketch doesn't show: 1. a bend at the outboard aileron tip. After laying out the tubing on the wing, a bend in the tubing is the only way this installation will work. 2. the tubing routed parallel to the trailing edge. If this installation requires the tubing to be routed parallel to the trailing edge, then a sharp bend at the outboard aileron tip is required. MY QUESTIONS ARE: 1. Will a bend or a sharp bend with the tubing cause friction in the rudder system and reduce the life span of the tubing? 2. How important is it to place the tubing parallel to the trailing edge? 3. Any quick and dirty methods for routing out the foam for the installation (ie, jig for dremel)? THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT:) MARK DALRYMPLE PLANS # 361 STUCK DEEP IN WINGS 714-538-4622 (H) 310-982-6983 (W) 1, Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:15:41 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Fwd: COZY: RUDDER CABLE ROUTING FOR HIDDEN BELLCRANKS In a message dated 96-07-22 20:09:47 EDT, C345830@MDCPO10.LB.MDC.COM (Dalrymple, Mark J) writes: > MY QUESTIONS ARE: > > 1. Will a bend or a sharp bend with the tubing cause friction in the rudder > system and reduce the life > span of the tubing? > > 2. How important is it to place the tubing parallel to the trailing edge? > > 3. Any quick and dirty methods for routing out the foam for the installation > > (ie, jig for dremel)? I routed my Nylaflow tubing in a straight line from the root end to around the area of the outboard aileron tip, then a gentle curve to parallel the tubing with the trailing edge at the tip of the wing. If you get about the last 4" or so of the tubing parallel with the trailing edge, you'll be ok. I say 4" because about 2" of the aft tip of the wing will be cut away when you install the winglet (at least it is on the Long. Check your plans). The tubing needs to be parallel with the trailing edge at the point where it enters the winglet, otherwise you won't have the proper pull angle required by the internal belhorns. Stay away from sharp bends. If the cable ever wears through the tubing inside the wing, there's no practical way to repair it. DON'T MICRO the tubing in place the last 4" at the wingtip. After the winglets are installed and you install the belhorns, you'll have to cut back the tubing INSIDE the wing to provide room for the nicopress sleeve and the cable thimble. You'll need a cavity in the trailing edge of the wing in the trailing edge area for the sleeve and thimble to retract into at full rudder deflection. If you fill this area up with micro, you'll just have to dig, drill, and cuss it out. And if you're installing lower winglets, this process isn't easy because you'll be working thru holes you'll cut in the outboard skin of the lower winglet. It's kind of like orthoscopic surgery, and it is definitely not a rewarding part of the project (read "Ain't no fun!) As far as cutting the trough, I just layed out the routing on the wing with a felt tip pen, and used a dremel freehand with about a 1/4" rotary file installed. It was easier than I thought. You might wander a little, but that's what micro is for. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a fan of the flush rudder belhorns because of the time, effort and aggravation that went into installing them. Figure on adding at least a week of frustrating work to the project if you install them. Printed words can't describe what a pain this part of the project was. The external belhorns may look ugly, but they sure are easy to install! Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: RUDDER CABLE ROUTING FOR HIDDEN BELLCRANKS (fwd) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 9:31:34 EDT MARK DALRYMPLE wrote: >1. Will a bend or a sharp bend with the tubing cause friction in the rudder >system and reduce the life > span of the tubing? Yes. The tighter the bend (whether for the flush or standard rudder belhorns) the more friction and wear on the tubing and the lower the life span will be. You'd like the tubing to be as straight as possible, with the end of it pointing in the correct direction. >2. How important is it to place the tubing parallel to the trailing edge? As Stet Elliot said, except for the last few inches (and the entrance at the root end) not important. >3. Any quick and dirty methods for routing out the foam for the installation >(ie, jig for dremel)? I've got the little orange plastic router attachment for the dremel tool (came with it, I think - [bought the thing 25 years ago - it's hard to remember :-) ]). If, as Stet says, you draw the line with a felt pen on the foam (and you make it as straight as possible) you can temporarily clamp or hot glue a straight-edge to the foam and use it as a router guide for the straight sections of the tubing run. for the curved sections, just freehand it - in the foam you can follow a line pretty easily since there's almost no resistance. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: wing/winglet antennae wire routing Date: Fri, 2 Aug 96 15:43:06 EDT People; Having recently installed my COM antennae into the winglets and the 2nd NAV antenna into the right wing, I thought I'd pass along an technique I think I made up (never seen it before) for minimizing the damage to the surface of the foam. First, prepare for the copper tape as usual. For the winglets, instead of routing the coax in a groove along the surface of the foam (first perpendicular to the tape and then parallel to the leading edge), I drilled a 1/2" hole in the foam about 1" back from the leadiing edge. This hole started on the bottom surface of the winglet, and followed the L.E. north, staying approximately 1" away from the surface of the foam under the L.E. I drilled this deep enough (about 24", I think) so that it would intersect the perpendicular line drawn from the center of the copper tape (where the baluns attach to the coax). I then drilled a hole from the balun area at a shallow angle under the foam to intersect with the first hole. This leaves me with a small hole (which I would have had anyway) where the baluns and coax attach to the tape, but the rest of the coax can snake its way inside the foam all the way out of the winglet. Snaking the coax was non-trivial - first I fed the coax down the shallow hole till it bumped into the L.E. hole. I then fed some stiff steel wire (bent into a hook at the end) into the L.E. hole and snagged the coax, and then pulled it through while feeding from the other end. For the wings, I've done something similar. First, I prepared a region for the copper tape about 3" back from the leading edge as close to the strake area as I could get. Then I drilled a shallow hole starting at the center (balun/coax area) of the tape which intersected the hot-wired electrical conduit in the wing. I then snaked the coax through in the same manner as with the winglets. Don't know if this was really worth the trouble, but it certainly did a lot less damage to the foam, and made it easier to keep the foam smooth and the shape right, even with hard-shelling. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: "Dalrymple, Mark J" Subject: COZY: HOW TO STRAIGHTEN OUT TE ON THE WING BEFORE TOP SKINNING? Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 13:32:00 PDT HI TO ALL, I am just about ready to glass the top skin for the wings and I have a few questions and they are as follows: 1. The plans state that from jig to jig the Trailing Edge (TE) should be straight before the top skin is glassed. In some areas on my wing, the bottom skin TE is not straight. Any ideas for straightening out this problem (ie, bondo straight piece wood and clamp till cure?)? 2. If I attach a string from TE (@buttline 31") to TE (@buttline wingtip), should the full length of TE be in this plane (ie. string butts up against TE from inboard to outboard). The plans kind of suggest that only TE from jig to jig be straight and not straight from inboard to outboard. The reason I am asking this question is because the TE from my wing tip to 1 foot inboard does not run into this plane. I hope to glass the top skin Saturday. Comments/Suggestions greatly appreciated! :) Mark Dalrymple Deep in Wings From: "Rob Cherney" Organization: Ellicott City, Maryland Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 17:23:24 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: HOW TO STRAIGHTEN OUT TE ON THE WING BEFORE TOP SKINN Mark J. Dalrymple wrote: > 1. The plans state that from jig to jig the Trailing Edge (TE) should be > straight before the top skin is glassed. In some areas on my wing, the > bottom skin TE is not straight. > Any ideas for straightening out this problem (ie, bondo straight piece wood > and clamp till cure?)? Sorry for this reply being so tardy, but I just received your e-mail on Saturday. I wonder where the delay was... Anyhow, I used a long aluminium 1" x 2" extrusion to keep the trailing edge straight. I masked most of the extrusion with plastic shipping tape and left a strip of aluminium exposed. This strip was glued to the bottom skin trailing edge using the thick lobbyist cyanoacrylate (sp?) "super glue". I also had to use the "zapper" spray to get an instant cure. I used weights and clamps to get the trailing edge straight against the extrusion. Once the top skin was cured, I used a very thin putty knife to pop the extrusion from the bottom of the wing. Rob- +--------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert Cherney Home Phone: (410)465-5598 | |Ellicott City, Maryland e-mail: cherney@clark.net | +--------------------------------------------------------+ From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 17:46:15 EDT People; In the plans, Nat says to attach the hinges to the wing (in alignment). While non-trivial (for three hinges, about 6 feet apart) I think I've pretty much got this done. Next, he says to put a few dabs of bondo on the other side of the hinges, put the aileron in place, and let the bondo cure with the hinges properly aligned on the aileron. Now, unless his brand of magic lamp works a great deal better than mine does, I can't see how this could possibly work. When I push the aileron against the hinges, they just sort of flop around, and I cant imagine that they'd suck themselves up flush with the aileron just because they've got bondo blobs on them. What am I missing? How did the rest of you do this? Am I blind here, or what? -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 15:15:13 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: Re: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com,Internet writes: > In the plans, Nat says to attach the hinges to the wing (in alignment). > While non-trivial (for three hinges, about 6 feet apart) I think I've > pretty much got this done. Next, he says to put a few dabs of bondo on > the other side of the hinges, put the aileron in place, and let the > bondo cure with the hinges properly aligned on the aileron. Now, unless > his brand of magic lamp works a great deal better than mine does, I > can't see how this could possibly work. When I push the aileron against > the hinges, they just sort of flop around, and I cant imagine that > they'd suck themselves up flush with the aileron just because they've > got bondo blobs on them. > > What am I missing? How did the rest of you do this? Am I blind here, > or what? Marc, You are right, they won't suck themselves flush without some help. What I did (and I know I have read of a better way since, but can't remember) is a Rube Goldberg method, but got the job done. I hot glued supports to hold the aileron in position and installed the hinges with the screws on the wing. I then cut up a bunch of those plastic cable ties and hot glued them to the "bottom" side of the hinges to provide some spring pressure. I then put on some dabs of bondo on the top side of the hinge and slid it into position. The plastic ties did a decent job of holding the hinge tight against the aileron, but where it needed a little more pressure I cut up some credit cards (always a good move :-)) just wide enough to squeeze through the hinge gaps and bent them to get it a little tighter. After the bondo cures, it still may look like you could have gotten it a little closer, but not to worry. As I remember, I drilled a couple of 1/8" holes for positioning rivets before I removed the bondo. I then cleaned it all up, applied a little 5 min. epoxy with flox and clecoed them for cure. After this, you can check for fit and freedom of movement before hitting the hinges with a bunch of flox and rivets. Even after all of this, I did discover a hinge was not exactly right, but it was not that difficult to get off after drilling out the rivets. Hope this helps. Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- by InfoAve.Net (PMDF V5.0-6 #4800) id <01I964962ZRK9040TN@InfoAve.Net> for marcz@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 19:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Nick Ugolini Subject: Re: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? When I push the aileron against >the hinges, they just sort of flop around, and I cant imagine that >they'd suck themselves up flush with the aileron just because they've >got bondo blobs on them. > >What am I missing? How did the rest of you do this? Am I blind here, >or what? One of the trivia items I recall in my readings is:... to push the hinges against the aileron while the bondo is setting up, you first have to bondo a small springs on the other side of the hinges to push the hinge against the aileron while the other side is setting up. I hope that helps. Nick Ugolini unick@mail.charleston.net Varieze N89RS Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 19:58:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "George A. Graham" Subject: Re: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Marc J. Zeitlin wrote: Hey Mark ! just jam some foam under the hinges to keep'em pointing up a little. Then when you add bondo, you can press them all down into position real easy. I clamped some sticks on to help align the top surface, then duct taped them to the wing until set. George. Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 21:27:40 -0400 From: Paul Burkhardt Subject: Re: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? Hey mark I remember posting to the list concerning this problem. It should be in the archives. with in the last 9 months. I used ear plugs the kind you use for shooting. Get stiff ones and stick them under the hinge. use flox between the hinge and the alerion and wait till cured. then just remove the alerion and drill the holes for the rivets. From: "Volk, Ray" Subject: RE: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 13:33:00 -0400 Marc writes, >When I push the aileron against >the hinges, they just sort of flop around, and I cant imagine that >they'd suck themselves up flush with the aileron just because they've >got bondo blobs on them. Marc, I've been out of town since last Thursday and just saw your e-mail now. It sounds like you got some ideas similar to what I did but I'll tell you what I did anyway. I cut myself some 6" lengths of soft foam about 1.5 inches square and tied them to the inside of the hinges with some thread. I ran the thread up through the small spaces in the .5 inch hinge segments at each end and in the center of each hinge. The hinges should then be under a constant pressure to open. The pressure is determined by amount of foam, it's softness, and the tightness of the thread. . I then installed the ailerons, got everything lined up, then lightly bondoed spots on the visible portions of the hinges. After the bondo cures, remove the aileron screws and the hinges should be tight against the ailerons such that you can drill your rivet holes. This worked fairly well for me after a little experimenting to get the right amount of foam and the cords tight enough. Ray Volk rvolk@space.honeywell.com Cozy #426, Completed chapters 4-7,10,11,14, 19,and now finishing 20. Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:09:41 -0400 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Ch. 19 - aileron hinges? I had this problem last year and threw the question out on the mailing list. Check the archives, there were a number of interesting replies. The one that sticks in my mind was to use foam earplugs. Compress them and wedge them in on the hinges to force them open. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 DFINN7971@AOL.COM From: Sid & Mari Lloyd Subject: RE: COZY: Phenolic vs Teflon as a bearing surface Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 20:45:38 -0500 Jeff Russell has some great roller bearing kits that I installed. They make the linkage real smooth. I would also recommend using taper pins instead of bolts for joining the torque tube sections. They eliminate slop in the linkage. Sid ---------- From: Neil Clayton[SMTP:harvey3@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 1996 5:01 PM To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com Subject: COZY: Phenolic vs Teflon as a bearing surface The plans call for a piece of phenolic to be epoxied to the wing root as a bearing for the aileron torque tube to pass through. I've never used phenolic. I was thinking of substituting a piece of teflon instead. I'm sure it has a lower coef-of-friction than phenolic??? However, I need to do some testing first. In the cold of higher altitudes, will a teflon bearing contract, clamping the tube? Will Phenolic? Etc. Maybe a needle bearing would be better? Anyone got any thoughts/ideas? Anyone use anything different here? Thx Neil From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Phenolic vs Teflon as a bearing surface (fwd) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 9:52:57 EDT Neil Clayton writes: >I've never used phenolic. I was thinking of substituting a piece of >teflon instead. I'm sure it has a lower coef-of-friction than >phenolic??? Most anything does, except maybe 36 grit sandpaper :-). Phenolic is a crappy bearing material, and it will wear. >However, I need to do some testing first. In the cold of higher >altitudes, will a teflon bearing contract, clamping the tube? Will >Phenolic? Etc. Teflon (tm) has a coefficient of thermal expansion of approximately: -6 80 x 10 in/in/deg C while cotton phenolic's is approximately: -6 15 x 10 in/in/deg C So, for a 5/8" hole, and a 40 deg C temperature drop (20 C to -20 C), we'll see a shrinkage of the hole by: 0.002" for the Teflon (tm) and 0.0004" for the phenolic. Since you've got to have a lot more than 0.002" clearance in the hole (just so that you can rotate the torque tube without binding, since it moves fore and aft as it rotates, not to mention clearance for inserting the torque tube) along with the fact that the aluminum itself will contract (approx. 1/3 as much as the phenolic, which in this case is negligible), I don't think there's anything to worry about here for the Teflon (tm) and certainly not for the phenolic. >Phenolic? Etc. Maybe a needle bearing would be better? Certainly roller bearings of any sort will be better, but I think they're overkill - not to mention expensive. They've been mentioned before in the archives, and you can get relatively cheap ones, but personally I think they're more trouble than they're worth. Remember, if you use roller bearings, you need ones that can tolerate a couple of degrees of misalignment. Most needles don't. >Anyone got any thoughts/ideas? Anyone use anything different here? I used Delrin (tm), which is an Acetal copolymer. It's tougher than Teflon (tm) and has a lower coefficient of friction and wear than the phenolic. The expansion coefficient is about the same as the Teflon (tm) (actually a bit lower, but not much) and I think it's cheaper than Teflon (tm) although I got my 2" x 4" piece free from the scrap bin at work. The epoxy sticks to it a lot better than it ever would to the Teflon (tm) as well. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 06:33:30 -0500 From: mbeduhn@mail.snider.net (Mark Beduhn) Subject: COZY: Bearing material Rob Cherney wrote: While I'm not at a point in my project where I need to make the bearings, I have given some thought to this subject. I would suggest that a material called UHMW (ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene) might be the better choice. This material has almost the same coefficient of friction as Teflon, but is much tougher and resistant to abrasion. It is used on the bottom of skis. Does anyone know any more about this material, e.g. how easy it is to machine? How well does it stack up against Delrin (or is it the generic name for Delrin, even)? Either UHMW, or Delrin would work fine for the bearings. I used Delrin, but would have been just as happy with UHMW. Both machine very well, are slippery and abraision resistant. Mark Beduhn (COZY MK IV #494 , Chap 19) From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Bearing material (fwd) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 96 10:09:31 EDT Rob Cherney wrote: >......... I would >suggest that a material called UHMW (ultra-high molecular weight >polyethylene) might be the better choice. Mark Beduhn replied: >Either UHMW, or Delrin would work fine for the bearings. I used Delrin, but >would have been just as happy with UHMW. Both machine very well, are >slippery and abraision resistant. UHMW Polyethylene is slightly lighter than Delrin, a bit tougher, and has a lower coefficient of friction (more slippery). It also absorbs slightly less moisture when under water. It's coefficient of thermal expansion is twice that of Delrin, so it would shrink 0.004" (see yesterday's analysis) under the same conditions (rather than Delrin's 0.002"). As Mark B. says, either would work fine - actually, if I had thought about it, UHMW would probably be slightly better and I'd have chosen that, although the difference probably wouldn't be noticable in use. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: Neil Clayton (by way of Steve Hall ) Subject: COZY: Phenolic vs Teflon as a bearing surface Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:54:42 -0400 The plans call for a piece of phenolic to be epoxied to the wing root as a bearing for the aileron torque tube to pass through. I've never used phenolic. I was thinking of substituting a piece of teflon instead. I'm sure it has a lower coef-of-friction than phenolic??? However, I need to do some testing first. In the cold of higher altitudes, will a teflon bearing contract, clamping the tube? Will Phenolic? Etc. Maybe a needle bearing would be better? Anyone got any thoughts/ideas? Anyone use anything different here? Thx Neil You might want to check out the Granger Catalog,,, They have self- aligning pillow mounted ball bearings. These bearings are light weight and should last forever. I am using them for the control tubes (# 4x729 ) they cost about $10.00 . My two cents. Steve. From: michael.amick@nashville.com Subject: COZY: Phenolic vs Teflon Bearings Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 02:43:31 Organization: The Nashville Exchange-Http: //WWW.NASHVILLE.COM Several letters this last week on control systems have argued the pros & cons of Teflon etc. for the aileron torque tubes. Local Nashville Cozy builder, Michael Link (no Email Add.), used a large Fafnir self aligning bearing at the wing root and it is Smooooth. and I recall his cost was about $12.50 each. Slightly heaver than the phenolic but it sure beats having slop develop in the roll axis later on. If anyone is interested drop me a line and I'll put you in touch. Michael.Amick@Nashville.com MkIV #317 Chapter 5 Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 17:57:43 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: COZY: Aileron installation Well, I just finished installing the right wing aileron and, as pointed out in previous posts, it was an interesting experience. I soon came up against the obstacle that has plagued others (how to temporarily bondo the hinges against the aileron). I started out by installing (with double sided tape) some sponge rubber pieces that would apply pressure against the hinges. I quickly saw that this was going to present a significant problem when I tried to (hurredly, before the Bondo set up) position the aileron onto the wing. Then I came up with the idea of Bondoing just the exposed part of the hinges, the part that is not hidden, with the idea that I could lift the aileron off very carefully and then add some more Bondo to the rest of the hinges before drilling and riveting. By doing it this way, I could take all the time I needed to carefully position the aileron just where I wanted it. I clamped the aileron in position by clamping a 1 x1 piece of wood top and bottom which straddled the wing and aileron, one set on each end. I then used an exacto blade slipped between the hinge segments to push the hinge plate against the aileron and applied tiny dabs of Bondo on alternating hinge segments (just the ones fixed to the aileron part of the hinge). These little dabs bridged the interface between the hinge segment and the aileron. Lo and behold, the Bondo held so well that I didn't need to add any more when I removed the aileron. I carefully drilled two holes at the opposite ends of each hinge, applied the rivets and then drilled and riveted the remaining ones with the hinge now locked in position. I have to say it worked out perfectly with the aileron in exactly the place I wanted it (knock on wood several hundred times to prevent Murphy's future revenge). Michael 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Chaps 16 & 24 mostly finished. Now on chap 19. From: michael.amick@nashville.com Subject: COZY: Aileron Spherical Bearings Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 00:24:53 Organization: The Nashville Exchange-http://WWW.NASHVILLE.COM Last week I mentioned local builder Michael Link's Smoooth bearing used in the aileron Wing Root. I had several inquiries that wanted more info. An invoice check confirmed my earlier guess the part was a Spherical Bearing part no. COM-10 made by FK Bearings Inc. 11 DePaola Dr. Southington CT 06489 Ph: 800-662-06489. I bought mine from a local Distributor; Allied Bearings & Supply (615)255-1204. Cost was $9.88 each plus local sales tax. Weight on these was 0.11lbs each. Michael.Amick@Nashville.com MkIV #317 Chapter 5 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 02:05:18 -0400 From: COZYMK4@aol.com Subject: COZY: Chap 19: Aileron Installation I'm probably just a dunce but... Chap 19 Page 9, Step 11. CS 151 is supposed to be about 34 inches long to extend from the inboard wing rib to the inboard portion of the aileron. It is supposed to stop 1/4 outboard of the phenolic bearing block that is permanently mounted on the wing rib per Page 14, Section E-E. My problem comes in when it comes to installing all of this assembly together. How are we supposed to fasten the bolts at both ends of CS 151 (3/4 inch OD aileron torque tube) when there is no way to get a bolt and then wrenches in place. It would be a very tight fit if the aileron were in place first, then the Phenolic and CS 132R palced and the bolts tightened and then the phenolic glassed into position. Of course, this means that is can't be removed ever again, ie for painting, repair, adjustment etc. It seems more logical to extend CS 151 thru the phenolic and bolt it inboard so that it could be removed in the future or for that inevitable building mistake. The phenolic bearing block would then have a 3/4 inch hole versus the 5/16 that the plans call for. Am I all wet, or just stuck in epoxy? BTW, I use phenolic generically now since I went to my local plastic supply dealer for teflon instead. He was very knowledgeable and stated that phenolic was for electrical insulation in such things as computer boards and it would wear and therefore be lousy for a bearing material. He offered me a piece of teflon 9" by 8" for $21.00 or a much lighter piece of UHMW (ultra-high molecular weight) polyethylene that was 14" by 16" for only $14.00. That telfon was HEAVY. I like the slipperiness of the UHMW material on the metal torque tubes. Kevin Cozy Mark IV #90 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 10:16:06 -0700 From: Michael Antares Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 19: Aileron Installation At 02:05 AM 10/13/96 -0400, you wrote: >I'm probably just a dunce but... > >Chap 19 Page 9, Step 11. CS 151 is supposed to be about 34 inches long to >extend from the inboard wing rib to the inboard portion of the aileron. It >is supposed to stop 1/4 outboard of the phenolic bearing block that is >permanently mounted on the wing rib per Page 14, Section E-E. My problem >comes in when it comes to installing all of this assembly together. How are >we supposed to fasten the bolts at both ends of CS 151 (3/4 inch OD aileron >torque tube) when there is no way to get a bolt and then wrenches in place. > It would be a very tight fit if the aileron were in place first, then the >Phenolic and CS 132R palced and the bolts tightened and then the phenolic >glassed into position. Of course, this means that is can't be removed ever >again, ie for painting, repair, adjustment etc. It seems more logical to >extend CS 151 thru the phenolic and bolt it inboard so that it could be >removed in the future or for that inevitable building mistake. The phenolic >bearing block would then have a 3/4 inch hole versus the 5/16 that the plans >call for. > Having just completed an aileron installation I can give you an answer. The plans are in fact correct. The reason for CS151 ending 1/4 inch short of the bearing block is to use CS152 as the part that provides the bearing. If you assemble everything including CS152 but not CS132, you can, with some help, slide the assembly through the hole in the wing and guide CS152 through the bearing block hole. Then you assemble CS132 to CS152. It is relatively easy to assemble or remove the aileron and you will probably do it several times while fitting the aileron in place. By the way you might want to refer to my prior post, if you haven't already, relating to how I did the hinge installation. In regards to extending CS151 through the block, I am not a mechanical engineer but it is my experience that you do not want to ever use aluminum as a bearing material--it has a bad tendency to gall! That is probably the reason that CS152 is the part that goes through the bearing block (Mark or other experts can correct me on this!). regards, Michael 6077 Old Redwood Highway Penngrove CA 94951 707.664.1171 Cozy#413 Finished through chap 14 except chap 13. Chaps 16 & 24 mostly finished. Now on chap 19, one wing finished. Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 13:56:02 -0400 From: COZYMK4@aol.com Subject: COZY: Re: Chap 19: Ailerons Michael, many thanks for the help on my aileron dilema. Chances are someone else had the same question or would have later. This builders group on internet really works well. I knew that CS 132 and and CS 152 were two different pieces, but since Brock sent them together so well fused, I thought that it was a press fit with the bolts to make sure that they didn't slip. Well, with a little hammer persuasion, they come apart nicely and your description of assembly will work just fine. I agree about the aluminum vs steel bearing wear and tear. Thanks Michael, Kevin Cozy Mk IV #90 From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Aluminum Bearings Date: Mon, 14 Oct 96 17:56:50 EDT Michael Antares wrote: >In regards to extending CS151 through the block, I am not a mechanical >engineer but it is my experience that you do not want to ever use aluminum >as a bearing material--it has a bad tendency to gall! That is probably the >reason that CS152 is the part that goes through the bearing block (Mark or >other experts can correct me on this!). Aluminum on aluminum is bad - it will gall. Generally, you want the two bearing materials to have different hardnesses. In the case we're discussing here, either aluminum or steel on the will be fine - there's no chance that the plastic will cause the aluminum (or steel) to gall. Aluminum on steel is generally OK, too, but as always, it depends upon the application. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 01:07:44 -0400 From: COZYMK4@aol.com Subject: COZY: Chap 19: Aileron Hinges/Rear spar Another problem! My rear spar is not deep enough for the aileron hinges to fit snug against the upper skin of the wing. I lack about a tenth of an inch up 0.15 inches at the worst. Will I do best by cutting back the rear spar in those areas, fill with flox, or try to re-fiberglass the spar by 1-4 layers, OR should I just trim some of the hinge itself to make it fit? The edge of the hinge could be trimmed in between the nut plates and the areas around the nut plate could be cleared of fiberglass to make room on only those areas. This would leave a scalloped edge on the hinge and less damage to glass structure. Right now, the aileron fits well and with the foam rubber idea to make the hinge fit tight against the aileron, that ordeal from the other wing was not repeated. The main problem is that the screws on top of the wing skin are kicked at the same angle as the hinge and therefore won't lay down flat on the skin of the wing. I already slid the hinge back as far as I dared to reduce the depth problem, but it wasn't enough. Any great ideas? Thanks in advance. Kevin Funk Cozy MkIV #90 Fiberglassing the other winglet, com antenna in place. From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Chap 19: Aileron Hinges/Rear spar (fwd) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 96 10:52:12 EDT Kevin Funk writes: >Will I do best by cutting back the rear spar in those areas, fill with flox, >or try to re-fiberglass the spar by 1-4 layers, OR should I just trim some of >the hinge itself to make it fit? IF you can trim the hinges so that the distance between the edge of the holes you drill for the screws is more than one hole diameter from the new hinge edge, then you can trim the hinges safely. Don't leave less than one hole diameter's worth of material between the edge of the hole and the edge of the hinge. Trimming the hinges would be the first choice, as it would be a lot less work than the following recommendation. If you need to trim the rear spar, trim it back in the three areas and then micro the bare foam and glass with 3 BID overlapping the current spar layup 1". This would lower the hinge line a bit, so you'd have to adjust the positioning of the hinge on the aileron (if you haven't already floxed and riveted them in place on the aileron) to get the aileron and the wing to line up evenly. If the hinges are already attached to the aileron, you could grind the 4 BID layup in the hinge area down to 1 layer thick, and then layup the 3 BID to get the correct thickness in the hinge area. Don't just trim the glass spar and then fill with flox - flox doesn't have the structural properties of glass. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Sun, 20 Oct 96 21:59:49 -0800 From: Eric_Westland@msvl.wednet.edu (Eric Westland) Organization: Marysville School Dist. Subject: COZY: Hinge pins stuck I have a not-so-bright friend that let some epoxy get in one of the aileron hinges. I, I mean he, tried driving it out with some light taps, but no luck. Any ideas out there? The free half moves just fine, so it can't be stuck too bad, but I'm afraid to hit it too much harder. Thanks, Eric -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Sent via ExpressNet/SMTP(tm), Internet Gateway of the Gods! ExpressNet/SMTP (c)1994-95 Delphic Software, Inc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Hinge pins stuck (fwd) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 96 11:10:19 EDT Eric Westland wrote: >I have a not-so-bright friend that let some epoxy get in one of the aileron >hinges. I, I mean he, tried driving it out with some light taps, but no luck. >Any ideas out there? The free half moves just fine, so it can't be stuck too >bad, but I'm afraid to hit it too much harder. When I floxed the hinges to the aileron on the first wing, I had some epoxy get in the hinges as well. I was able to clear 99% of it with a single edge razorblade in about an hour. I just kept moving and poking, and eventually got most of the pieces out. Although the hinge by itself still feels a little stiff, once it's mounted on the wing and actuated with the belcranks etc., it feels just fine. Good luck. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 18:29:40 -0400 From: Phillip.Johnson@Lockheed.on.ca (Phillip Johnson) Subject: COZY: Hinge pins stuck (fwd) Try using a soldering iron on the ofending hinge. You shoutd get enough heat to burn the epoxy around the pin without damaging the syrrounding structure. Phillip Johnson Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 03:41:27 -0400 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Hinge pins stuck (fwd) Eric Westland writes: > >I have a not-so-bright friend that let some epoxy get in one of the aileron > >hinges. I, I mean he, tried driving it out with some light taps, but no > luck. > >Any ideas out there? The free half moves just fine, so it can't be stuck > too > >bad, but I'm afraid to hit it too much harder. > If you do manage to get the pin out, you can clean out the hinge pin holes with a drill bit the same size as the pin, passed by hand through the pin holes. This easily cleans out any epoxy out of the holes with no damage to the aluminum. Stet Elliott stetsone@aol.com Perpetual Long-EZ builder Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 17:10:52 -0500 From: Mahan Subject: Re: COZY: Storing wings Kevin wrote: and start the installation of the winglets. I have considered not installing them for a few months due to space restrictions because the wings and winglets stack nicely now but seem unweildy when ssembled. I'm not sure where to put them in the garage where at least my wife's car can park too. Kevin, I hung my Long-EZ wings from the rafters of my garage for a year. Run the wings lengthwise in the garage, suspended from rope strung between sturdy eyelets screwed into the rafters. Let the upper winglets run down the back wall of the garage. You can make enough slack in the ropes on the winglet end of the wing to allow the lower winglet to clear the ceiling, if you have one. Put some padding where the ropes come around the trailing edges of the wings so that they won't creep over time to conform to the strain of the ropes. Fred in Florida Date: 6 Nov 1996 14:57:17 -0800 From: "Judd Stewart" Subject: COZY: Storing Wings I know a fellow who stored his wings _on end_ in a corner of the hanger. It gets pretty warm here in sunny southern California during the summer. After a year or so they looked like a banana!. He had stuff stacked in front of them and he didn't notice the creepage. I recommend storing any of the flying surfaces leading edge down with large pads to distribute the weight. My two bits! judd_stewrt@cpqm.saic.com (I don't know what ever happened to the project or if there was a fix) Date: 07 Nov 96 01:24:54 EST From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Winglet Alignment, Voritilons & Airfoil Shape Hi to All, If memory serves, (help me out here Stet) the Long-EZ builders discovered early on that it is better to mate the wings to the center section spar first, then the fuselage should be mated to the center section spar and aligned with the wings. Then the canard should be put in, before the winglets are put on the wings, to help make sure the chord of the winglets are parallel to the center line of the aircraft so you don't have any undesirable yawing problems. The vortilons need to be parallel to aircraft center line also to make sure they don't cause yawing problems, and placed correctly for maximum effect to the wings. Historical info: During original flight tests of the new Roncz Canard by Rutan Aircraft Factory (RAF) to replace the GU canard (years ago), the original length Roncz canard had too much lift, so they would cut a little off of it's length and flight test it again, and so forth. The tests got to the point, the story goes, that Mike Melvill would not fly the aircraft again if the canard was going to be cut off any more because of the sharp pitch down during canard stall, canard stall speed got higher and higher, the canard was still too powerful for aft CG flight (would fly when the wings won't), etc. So vortilons were put on. Vortilons have been around in aviation for a long time. The vortilons are a good simple "fix", if you will, used to straighten out the span wise air flow across the wing airfoil at each vortilon caused from the swept wing, to make the main wing have a little more lift through the vortilon area aft in a "V" wedge, which helps the main wing keep flying / not stall / become over powered by the canard, paritcularly with aft CG flight, but still in the normal flight envelope. With the new vortilons installed, a new test program was conducted to determine the new / correct length of the Roncz canard based on the different weights and CG's within the normal flight envelope (+/-), which is based on the lift the main wing with 3 vortilons on each side would produce. The Beech Starship has 4 vortilons per side. Removing 1 vortilon on one side and 2 on the other will cause each side of the wing to have different amounts of lift / behave differently (unknown), possibly straightening out a yawing problem, but probably causing the canard to over power the main wing in aft CG flight, but still in the normal flight envelope. Result - pancake landing. On another note, have you all ever wondered why there seems to be such a wide variation in scratch built canard aircraft performance reports? I think a big factor is that the builders do try to keep the shape of their canard airfoil using a template per plans (which is critical), but many take whatever the wing and winglet foam core gives them for airfoil shape after hotwire. The wing and winglet airfoil shape is just as critical for optimum performance as the canard. Wing and winglet contouring to templates to minimize drag, maximize lift, maximum overall airfoil performance, etc. is the way to go for maximum aircraft performance from the wing you have - the rest is the fixed main gear, cooling drag and overall aerodynamic cleanup of the entire airframe / attention to detail (such as fillets, of which I have the equations to calculate, if anyones interested). If the finish on the wings is not near perfect, overall aircraft performance suffers. I feel this is a big factor of how we were able to get a 217 MPH TAS at 9500' using a 160 HP 0-320 with the scratch built non-laminar flow wing Prototype 'A' Infinity 1 has, by putting a lot of effort into the accuracy of the airfoil shapes (the final prototype has 60% top, maybe 70% bottom, NASA laminar wings, strakes and winglets). This attention to airfoil contour is one of the many reasons Nemesis, for example, does so well in the Formula 1 Air Races, also. My $0.03. Using carpenter water bubbles to build houses, and water tubes to set wing dihedral, and canard and wing incidence is not overly the best tools to use either. I hope the above is helpful. Please feel free to call anytime if there are any questions. Infinity's Forever, JD From: Nick Parkyn Subject: RE: COZY: Storing Wings - UV protection Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:36:20 +-1100 If any unpainted composite components are stored, they should be covered to keep out UV light to prevent degradation. ---------- Date: 14 Nov 96 20:37:48 EST From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Eppler 1230 Airfoil Hi John, and to All, John Epplin wrote: >I have the same feelings about this. I found the Eppler 1230 (?) airfoil on some web site in coordinate pairs. Plotting this after sizing it to the largest template provided with the cozy plans shows the upper surface to be within paper tolerance, however the lower surface is far from the same airfoil. Somewhere I read that the Cozy Mk4 airfoil was a modified eppler 1230. I asked Nat what the modification might be, he did not know. He got the airfoil from Rutan. I have asked several people if there was a set of coordinates available for the Cozy airfoil. I can generate these from the templates I have but would like to go back to the original if I could. I can then use these to cut templates with a CNC machine in order to produce the best possible job. Any body out there know where I can find these or have another idea?< Please DO NOT CHANGE YOUR EPPLER 1230 MOD AIRFOIL BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL SHAPE! Yes, the airfoil has been modified, as it states in your plans, for good reason. I'll try to explain what little bit I know, then decide if you still really want to change it back to its original shape: A little history: The main wing of the Vari-EZE is a NASA GAW laminar flow airfoil, which was one of the 'fad' airfoils, if you will, in the late '60's early '70's, and is one of the main wing airfoils used on the BD-5 -- it's a good airfoil. Burt Rutan worked for Jim Bede during this time period, and during this time period Burt designed and built the Vari-Viggen, and then came the Vari-Eze. The Vari-Eze has the GAW laminar flow airfoil. The problem, if you will, with the GAW airfoil being used for canards is that it is a high pitching moment airfoil. I think Burt eventually felt the Vari-Eze was a little to unstable / sensitive in pitch. Many Vari-Eze pilots also don't / didn't overly care for the sensitve pitching, but many Vari-Eze drivers do love their Vari-Eze's and it's high performance and pitching abilities. Look what Klaus Savier and others have accomplised with their laminar flow winged Vari-Eze's. Go out in a Long-EZ and play follow-the-leader, or dogfight, and you will find the Vari-Eze will probably out-pitch you and win - the Vari-Eze is still a formidable design. So Burt improved on the Vari-Eze and made the Long-EZ. But Burt only knows why he went backwards, if you will, from a laminar flow to a turbulent flow airfoil in the Long-EZ. He did it, I suspect, probably because of being ultra conservative (as we all know), wanting a more positively stable and docile (compared to the Vari-Eze), medium speed, economic, cross-courtry aircraft. The Long-EZ, as we all know, turned out beautifully. So, the main wing airfoils used for the Long-EZ, and all the derivatives (Cosy, Cozy MK-IV, AeroCanard, Berkut, E-Racer, SQ 2000, etc.) is a turbulant flow, high pitching moment canard airfoil - a modified Eppler 1230 airfoil. A canard aircrafts main wing pitching moment cannot be greater than -0.05, or the main wing pitching moment will overpower the canard. Someone just walked in and asked me about pitching moment (this will be simply stated). Example: A Cessna 150 has about 150 lbs. of down force on the tail to overcome the turbulant flow wing and its pitching moment in cruise to keep the nose up. That's 150 less lbs. the plane can carry because of the down forces. If you look at the F-4 Phantom, the S-3 Viking, many others, the stabs are an inverted airfoil to lift earthward to overcome the their wing pitching moment. This is one of the beauties about canards, they are like being in biplane with separated lifting wings where the canard lifts 20 to 30% of the aircraft weight while the wings are lifting about 80 to 70% of the aircraft weight. Bottom line - less drag, more aerodynamic efficiency for the HP used, etc. To continue, the mod part to the Eppler 1230 airfoil was to flatten out the cusp on the bottom of the wing, basically from the bottom wing spar cap to the wing trailing edge, to reduce the high pitching moment characteristics of this airfloil / main wing, to bring it within the -0.05 pitching moment so to not over power the canard. This is why one shouldn't lengthen the fuselage if it moves this canard forward which increases the moment arm of this wing distance to this canard, and moves the weight of the pilot forward. Without totally re-designing the airplane changing this wing and canard combination, this longer combination will make for higher canard stall speeds, must be at flying speed to rotate meaning longer take-off roll, higher landing speeds, nose falling through on landing, etc. If you are aware of all this and accept this, then lengthen the fuselage and move this canard and pilot forward. So, that's why Johns research shows the upper surface to be within the tolerance of the paper plans airfoil and the lower surface is so different. This turbulent flow Eppler 1230 Mod airfoil still gets maybe 30% of its chord as laminar flow because of the smooth composite surface (see old CP's), but only if the builder does a good near mirror finish and wax job - pretty good for an airfoil that is turbulant flow from the get go. Tid bit info: The wings, winglet, canard and prop airfoils for the Beech Starship were designed by John Roncz. The wing and strake of the Starship is created from 7 laminar flow airfoils per side - the Infinity 1 has 5 NASA laminar flow airfoils per side. Drag is squared when calculating aircraft performance. I will talk about the need for longer ailerons, rudder construction improvements, wing wash-in wash-out, wing incidence, canard incidence and Turn-Over Angle (TOA) if enough are ever interested. Now after reading the above you still want to change your Eppler 1230 Mod back to the higher pitching moment original shape, I personnally think you will be playing with fire and hope you will reconsider. Canards are a little different / harder to design than conventional aircraft. You will really be testing the unknown. But you are the aircraft manufacturer and can do what you please. Also, while I'm talking about such serious changes, one shouldn't be changing the leading and trailing edge sweep, or the wash-in wash-out of this wing -- more fire, more real unknowns for you with this airfoil that you probably may not want to take on. But you can do whatever you want, this is what Experimental Aircraft is about. Finally, maybe use the coordinates you found to plot the upper surface since you say it is the same as the paper one in your plans, but obviously be careful doing the bottom surface to ensure it is the same as the mod bottom surface. Maybe you can figure out how the bottom surface was drawn / lofted? P.S. - John, what is the URL Web Site for the Eppler 1230 airfoil you found. Hope this helps (HTH) and was of interest. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 Shipping Address: 1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace From: garfield@pilgrimhouse.com (Garfield) Subject: COZY: Eppler 1230 Airfoil Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:49:04 GMT Organization: Pilgrim House On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:53:24 GMT, garfield@pilgrimhouse.com (Garfield) wrote: On 14 Nov 96 20:37:48 EST, INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> wrote: > I will talk about the need for longer ailerons, rudder construction >improvements, wing wash-in wash-out, wing incidence, canard incidence = and >Turn-Over Angle (TOA) if enough are ever interested. Oh, absolutely. I am REAL interested. Please continue your discussions!! Garfield Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 23:15:20 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@kan.lmcda.lmco.com (Phillip Johnson) Subject: COZY: Wing Washout Fellow builders Yesterday lunch time I happened to surf the web and stop at Marc Zetlin's log book. Very interesting I thought, good workmanship and attention to detail. I reached chapter (I can't remember) where Marc shows his wing construction using Jeff Russell's kit. Looks good to me I thought, then I noticed what appeared to be a straight edge I beam running the whole length of the trailing edge. Strange I thought, since I recalled the trailing edge dipped down approximately 0.75 inches at about BL 67.5. I built my wings about two years ago so I questioned my memory but it nagged me all afternoon. As I drove home I came to the conclusion that one or more of the following scenario's existed: 1) I screwed up my wings, but that could never happen could it :-), 2) Marc Z screwed up his wings, 3) Jeff Russell screwed up the design of the kit, or; 4) Maybe the picture told a lie because of the camera angle and everyone's wings were OK. By the time I arrived home I decided that it was probably the picture angle and that we were all OK. I remember checking those jigs so carefully two years ago, and I remember calling Nat about the non straight trailing edge. He assured me that that was the way it was supposed to be. When I arrived home I went for the plans (I keep an untouched copy of the big drawings for times like this) and I measured the trailing edge WL from the template drawings. These figures are given below: BL 31 67.5 118.25 169 WL 17.5 16.9 17.2 17.2 Sure enough there is a minima around BL 67.5. Great I'm OK. Oh well just to be sure I measure the indicated location of the trailing edge on the five assembly jigs. These should agree with the templates right? Wrong. The jig trailing edge water lines, after correction for the 11.31 degree sweep back of the trailing edge, are different to the templates. These data points are given below: Jig # 5 4 3 2 1 Tip BL 36.05 72.5 108.5 128.1 159.2 169 WL 17.5 17.0 17.5 17.75 18.15 18.28 (Tip is an extrapolated value) Since the butt lines are not coincident I drew a simple graph for these two data sets and it became very evident that the assembly jigs reduce the angle of incidence at the wing tip by approximately 3 degrees more than the templates would suggest. Since the leading edge is at WL 17.4 and the trailing edge is now at 18.2 a 2.3 degree pitch down at the tip exists. Now with the asymmetry of the aerofoil the tip may still be yielding lift in level flight. I jigged mine strictly according to the plans and it would be difficult to measure them since they are being stored at present. What are other people doing. Do we have a common problem? It's possible that some builders are building from fundamentals i.e. positioning the jigs on the basis of the templates rather than the jigs, which I guess would be more correct and this may account for differing flight characteristics between aeroplanes. I understand that Nat made a design change when he went from the MK III to the MKIV could any of the MK III builders comment on their jigs and templates. As an aside I visited a Vari-eze builder when I was down in Florida last month. He did not have the winglets on at this stage, but the wings were on the aeroplane. The aerofoil at the tips were visible and appeared to have a negative incidence. The aerofoil section at the tip was surprisingly close to symmetrical. The builder had checked his carefully and assured me that it was correct and suggested that there may be some interaction between the wing and the winglet that warranted this property. Maybe we don't have a problem. Your feedback is welcome. Phillip Johnson Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 10:02:47 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@kan.lmcda.lmco.com (phillip johnson) Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Wing Washout Jeff Russell wrote: > We changed our wings long ago when we found out that the .75 dip down > was left in to meet a cowling flange from the Vari-eze to the Long-eze. > Nat also went the same way from the long to the cozy and MKIV. He did > change the .38 inch kink in at the root to being straight from root to > tip. I don't quite understand. The figures I quoted are from the MK IV, So Nat has not straightened out the dip. I can understand your desire to remove the kink/dip since assembly is easier, but how have you done it? Are the trailing edge values, outboard of BL 67.5 in accordance with the templates, or the jigs, and inboard of BL 67.5 an extrapolation of the trailing edge, or have you maintained a constant waterline along the entire trailing edge. If the latter is true then the wing will have an averaged AOA less than the plans COZY MK IV. Basically there were two concerns, the first being the minor one "Kink or no Kink" which spawned the latter more significant problem which was the washout resulting from Nat's template and jig drawings not agreeing. > This is my 2nd airplane that I had with straight T.E. and I can not find > any reason not to build or fly that way There was no criticism intended. I just wanted to relay the sequence of events that prompted me to re-visit the TE measurements Phillip Johnson Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 15:39:08 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Washout Jeff Russell wrote: >We changed our wings long ago when we found out that the .75 dip UP >was left in to meet a cowling flange from the Vari-eze to the Long-eze. >Nat also went the same way from the long to the cozy and MKIV. He did >change the .38 inch kink in at the root to being straight from root to >tip. Phillip Johnson wrote: >I don't quite understand. The figures I quoted are from the MK IV, So Nat >has not straightened out the dip. >From BL 67.5 to BL 169 the wing is left the same (per plans) MKIV. from BL 67.5 to BL 31 the water line was raised .75 only at the T.E. This will take the dip UP out of the wing in that section. The MKIV jigs, hotwire template for BL 31 would have to be changed. >I can understand your desire to remove the kink/dip since assembly is >easier, but how have you done it? Are the trailing edge values, outboard of >BL 67.5 in accordance with the templates, or the jigs, and inboard of BL >67.5 an extrapolation of the trailing edge, or have you maintained a >constant waterline along the entire trailing edge. If the latter is true >then the wing will have an averaged AOA less than the plans COZY MK IV. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 phone/fax 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com NEW homepage address: http://www.binary.net/aerocad Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 16:24:40 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@kan.lmcda.lmco.com (phillip johnson) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Washout Phillip Johnson wrote: >I don't quite understand. The figures I quoted are from the MK IV, So >Nat has not straightened out the dip. Jeff Russell responded: > From BL 67.5 to BL 169 the wing is left the same (per plans) MKIV. > from BL 67.5 to BL 31 the water line was raised .75 only at the T.E. > This will take the dip UP out of the wing in that section. The MKIV > jigs, hotwire template for BL 31 would have to be changed. I surmise from this statement that the wing root was actually lowered 0.75 inches reference The stock MK IV thereby achieving a straight trailing edge and washout which is desirable. Good, I now understand how the AeroCanard wing is manufactured and this looks good to me. The problem is that Nat's plans effectively takes the stock cores and twists them in the jig by three degrees at the wing tips AFTER the cores are cut adding an additional, and probably unintentional, washout, i.e. three degrees more washout than Rutan put in the Long-eze. The level lines on the tip templates are no longer level once the wings are in the jigs. Phillip Johnson From: Epplin_John_A@hpmail1.90.deere.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 08:43:34 -0600 Subject: COZY: Wing templates I have been pursuing the machine cutting of the wing hot wire templates again. Has anyone measured the paper templates provided with the plans? According to the book the BL 67.5 length should be 42.7 in. The plans I have actually measure 42.44 in. to the trim line. Is this much of a discrepancy to be expected with paper templates? I made this measurement at about 70 deg F and low (~25%) humidity. I set up a system using good steel scales and digital calipers with assorted angle plates and dial indicators etc and measured the complete airfoil at 67.5. I made about 150 measurements around the complete drawing varying the spacing with the curvature as I went. These number pairs were input into the computer and a curve smoothing program used to sort out my measurement errors. Turns out my measuring method, which was quite time consuming, did produce a good curve. Very little error between the smoothed numbers and the actual measurements. I plotted the smoothed curve full scale on a good HP plotter. It lays exactly over Nats template, the thin line from the plotter is within the line on Nats drawing. Dividing all points by 42.44 (measured length) and further dividing the Y points by .162 (the thickness at that station) and rotating .6 deg (the washout) yielded a set of numbers I then used as a base to generate the other two templates. I multiplied and rotated by the numbers form the plans book. The results were plotted along with a reference line going through WL 17.4. These match Nats drawings within a line width except the lower aft about one third of the surface. At 118.25 my drawing is at worst case .060 thinner at 22.5" from the leading edge. The one at 169 is almost .100 thicker at 17" from LE. Does anybody know if this is intentional or an accumulation of tolerances etc.? I can edit my calculated drawings easily to make them agree with Nats templates, which I suspect should be done. The spar cap cuts and fishtail end will have to be added yet, but these are rather simple features to edit into the drawings. Now the point in all this was to produce a set of templates with the best accuracy I could. I have a some friends in the machine and welding business that have a laser cutter that can cut these from mild steel in very little time and reasonable cost. What I intend to do is cut a set of 3 on size and 3 more over size. I am not sure how much, .020 maybe. The talking numbers can be marked on the steel or maybe plotted on paper and glued on. The plan is to mount the on size one to the foam block with the oversize one over it. Make the cut following the oversize template then remove it. Using a long straight edge with sandpaper glued to it, sand to the on size template. This will eliminate the undercutting and small imperfections left by the wire cutting process. I am not trying to start a business but if this all works as well as I hope, these templates would be available to other builders for the shipping and aggravation expenses. John Epplin Mk4 #467 From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Wing templates (fwd) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 10:35:14 EST John Epplin writes: >Does anybody know if this is intentional or an accumulation of >tolerances etc.? I can edit my calculated drawings easily to make them >agree with Nats templates, which I suspect should be done. You should check with Nat (and/or RAF on this one), but I would suspect that since the airfoil is a "Modified" Eppler 1230, that the airfoil shape at specific BL's _may_ not be just a scaled version of the airfoil at BL 67.5. I would not be surprised to find that along with some washout, there is a slight modification to the airfoil shape as you move outward toward the tip. That said, I would also not be surprised if your system was much more _precise_ (note, I said "precise", not "accurate" - there's a huge difference :-) ) than RAF's or Nat's original methods for creating the paper templates. The accuracy of either method can only be checked by getting the original coordinates of the Mod Eppler 1230, which no-one seems to have been able to find. Without these coordinates, anything we do is just a guess. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:37:48 -0500 From: Phillip.Johnson@kan.lmcda.lmco.com (phillip johnson) John Epplin writes: > According to the book the BL 67.5 length should be 42.7 in. The > plans I have actually measure 42.44 in. to the trim line The 0.36 discrepancy may or may not be intentional, but remember that when you lay up the shear web you will be adding additional chord to the section. Also consider that the wing has sweep back so the true template should take this into account. By the time you have finished the wing you will have a skin of glass over the whole surface and two skins on the leading edge, the surface will be covered, we hope, in a thin layer of micro. At the wing tips, and 18 inches inwards, there will be additional lay-ups to hold the wing tip on. And lastly you are going to grab the wing and twist it three degrees, as I mentioned last week, to put it into the alignment jigs. With all these imperfections the design flies. My guess is that the changes that you are suggesting will pale into insignificance compared with everything else that has to be done. Your aeroplane will fly differently to mine and the next guy, by how much, no one can help you. Sorry to sound so cynical but we know the plane flies, and we know that the plane flies well. Phillip Johnson Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:27 -0500 From: INFINITY Aerospace <72124.347@compuserve.com> Subject: COZY: Eppler 1230 Mod Airfoil Hi to All, The way I understand it, the "Mod" part of this Eppler 1230 turbulent flow canard airfoil used as a main wing airfoil was to flatten out the cusp (a slight curve from the bottom spar cap to the trailing edge of the airfoil) to get the airfoil within the -0.05 maximum pitching moment so this airfoil could better be suited to canards. A higher pitching moment would begin to overpower the canard in certain flight regimes, making it pitch sensitive, etc. The flattened portion of the cusp is on the bottom of the wing basically from the bottom spar cap to the trailing edge of the wing. Many of the slight discrepancies in length and camber John Epplin is experiencing is a combination of what Phil Johnson stated, and probably the errors in making photo copies. If John wants to try to make a dead nuts accurate airfoil and re-create the Eppler 1230 Mod airfoil, use the coordinates for the Eppler 1230 airfoil he found of the upper surface entirely and the lower surface from the leading edge to the bottom spar cap, the length and wash-in and wash-out dimensions in the plans at each airfoil Buttline (BL), John's measurements of the cusp from the plans, and blend all these to see how it plots out compared to the templates provided in the plans. And do please let us all know how everything compares if you do tackle this. As Phil stated, the different thicknesses of the shear web at the various BL's affecting the airfoil lengths is a consideration, and the multiple plys over the area of where the winglet attaches on the top and bottom wing surfaces, affects the foam core shapes and the final airfoil shape. This brings back my previous post comments of the different airfoils each builder ends up with since no templates are used during wing airfoil construction and contouring. Making the foam core airfoils exact, then coming back and calculating the shear web thickness at each BL and trimming the shear web foam to account for the shear web glass build up, and sanding down the winglet attach area top and bottom of the airfoil to allow for the build up of winglet attach plys, accepting the fact you may have to have a little more filler to get back the airfoil through this short area, is probably the way to go. HTH. Infinity's Forever, EAA Member EAA Technical Counselor JD EAA Flight Advisor AOPA Member Test Pilot James D. Newman, President LCDR F-14 USNR INFINITY Aerospace Mailing Address: P. O. Box 12275 El Cajon, CA 92022 Shipping Address: 1750 Joe Crosson Drive, D-2 El Cajon, CA 92020 (619) 448-5103 PH & FAX 72124.347@compuserve.com Home Page http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/INFINITY_Aerospace From: Epplin_John_A@hpmail1.90.deere.com Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 08:28:25 -0600 Subject: COZY: Eppler 1230 Mod Airfoil James Newman writes: snip > If John wants to try to make a dead nuts accurate airfoil and > re-create the Eppler 1230 Mod airfoil, use the coordinates for the Eppler > 1230 airfoil he found of the upper surface entirely and the lower surface > from the leading edge to the bottom spar cap, the length and wash-in and > wash-out dimensions in the plans at each airfoil Buttline (BL), John's > measurements of the cusp from the plans, and blend all these to see how it > plots out compared to the templates provided in the plans. And do please > let us all know how everything compares if you do tackle this. This appears to be correct. The numbers I found for the 1230 airfoil are a little coarse especially around the leading edge, however if you visually smooth the curve after sizing it appropriately it fits quite well with the exception of the trailing edge and lower cusp. I am pursuing my goal of laser cutting the templates from steel and hope to have this done next week. I will do the final editing for the spar cap cuts and fishtail over the weekend. Incidentally, I forgot where I found the Eppler 1230 points but Steve Eberhart tells me that the University of Illinois has a site with airfoil coordinates. I vaguely remember something about this. I tried to find it again last week and gave up. If anyone knows about this, please inform the rest of us. will keep you posted. John Epplin Cozy Mk4 #467 je25272@hpmail1.90.deere.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Eppler 1230 Mod Airfoil (fwd) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 9:56:36 EST John Epplin writes: >Incidentally, I forgot where I found the Eppler 1230 points but Steve Eberhart >tells me that the University of Illinois has a site with airfoil coordinates. I >vaguely remember something about this. I tried to find it again last week and >gave up. If anyone knows about this, please inform the rest of us. >From the COZY "Aviation Information Sites" page at: http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/av_sites.html There's a link to the "UIUC Airfoil Data Site": http://uxh.cso.uiuc.edu/~selig/ads.html Remember, the coordinates here are for the stock 1230, not the modified one. All you need is the COZY web page :-) :-) :-) :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com