by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.1-4 #16063) with SMTP id <01IF4XI4X6EA002V4N@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:48:51 PST Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 13:49:14 -0800 From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: What a great group! John Epplin wrote: >> Thanks to everybody that responded to my questions concerning antennas >and bolt >> access covers. All good ideas. Now I have to chose between them. I >never >> thought of a drain for the bolt pockets. Great suggestions. >> >> Also concerning Paul S. post concerning the designer, in this case Nat, >he >> cannot provide every little detail. Never would get the plans out. We >need >> something to be creative about on our own. This forum is the best tool >we have >> to keep in touch. Eliminates a lot of mistakes and keeps us from >reinventing >> the wheel every day. I agree that we need to keep in touch, and I agree that a designer cannot provide "every little detail", but I am seeing a trend that disturbs me. The Cozy designs came "downstream" of Rutan's Long EZ, and are based on it. Many of the design features are identical. While Rutan was in the business of marketing plans and supporting builders, he insisted that an ownership of all pertinent Canard Pusher newsletters, and an up-to-date subscription to same was MANDATORY, as it was the only reasonable way to keep builders abreast of plans-changes, error-corrections, and of course, "service difficulties" as they arose with increasing time-in-service experience. As an EZ builder, I am not too familiar with the way Nat does this, though I have seen some of the Cozy newsletters. It seems logical to me that all the problems that have been discovered or uncovered by Long EZ builder/flyers that concern portions of the two designs that are identical or similar, should be passed on to Cozy builders by: 1. Including the "fix" in original Cozy plans, where feasable. 2. Making all the CP's required reading for Cozy builders (admittedly a bit much!). 3. Passing along all the changes or fixes previously covered in CP to Cozy builders by way of the Cozy newsletter. Of course this needn't cover "personal preference" items, but most definitely SHOULD cover any and all flight safety items. Awareness of the potential for a main wing attatch hardware corrosion problem, and its fix, definitely fits in the "safety-required-knowledge" category, in my opinion. I am a little shocked that this problem (which was discovered years ago) seems to be a complete surprise to *ANY* Cozy builder. Why wasn't this passed along to you, officially? What other discoveries from the past could you be "in the dark about", I wonder? I don't mean to criticize anyone here. I honestly don't know the nature or the extent of your methods of official safety-information dissemination. I worry. Howard Rogers A&P 2005148 From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: Re: COZY: NTSB Accident Reports Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 10:11:49 After looking at the stats I would agree with Jim and Darren. Two things really amaze me: 1) the incredibly dumb things we pilots will do, like low level aerobatics in a plane specifically designed not to do them, or an ATP taking off into IFR with a VFR airplane, 2) the number of reports of collisions with power lines (lots of people seem to like to play ground attack fighter in these planes), and 3) the incredibly ingeneous ways that Murphy comes up with keeping the fuel away from the engine. Getting the fuel system correct, using some sort of fuel low inidicator, and flying responsibly would have prevented most of the fatalities. BTW two pilots had their wings fold up in flight. Both had done improper installations. (One had the wings attached only with paint and caulk.) Have impartial experts go over your plane before you take it up. Fly safe and keep experimental aircraft free Steve On Fri, 02 May 1997 09:16:03 -0500, ddeloach@texoma.net wrote... >I concluded the same as Jim: most centered around various fuel-related >problems, and stupidity. The lesson I took away from this: I must be >doubly >careful when I build any component related to fuel storage, transport and >ignition. I will go out of my way to insure the hoses are correct, the >fittings exactly installed, throttle linkages checked and checked again, >etc. If half of the potential accidents waiting to get me can be avoided >simply by being unusually careful when building fuel-related components... > >(Sure, we all expect to be "unusually careful" with everything we build, >but every one of those guys on the list of accidents thought the same and >it got them anyway. Just goes to show that particular attention seems to >be warranted on the fuel system). > >-- Darren >DeLoach Sales & Software >http://www.deloach.com **************************************** Stephen A. Campbell Associate Professor, EE University of Minnesota ***************************************** Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 08:53:09 -0400 From: Jim Hocut Subject: COZY: NTSB Accident Reports The Canard Aviator's Page (www.canard.com) has added a link to NTSB accident reports for various canard type aircraft. There isn't much of a database built up yet for Cozys (thank goodness), but there are quite a few Long EZ accident reports. In perusing these, it quickly becomes apparant that two causes which stand out are pilot stupidity (buzzing, VFR flight into weather, etc.), and engine/fuel problems (one Long EZ was flown(?) without fuel pumps installed!!!!!!. Another suffered fuel starvation when teflon tape plugged his fuel line.) I was especially interested in these reports as a CFI, since I'm always telling students that they vastly reduce their chances of injury by not doing anything stupid. The accidents which involve some type of mechanical problem are worth studying so that we can get an education in what not to do. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com Posted-Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:16:24 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 09:16:03 -0500 From: Darren DeLoach Subject: Re: COZY: NTSB Accident Reports At 08:53 AM 5/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Canard Aviator's Page (www.canard.com) has added a link to >NTSB accident reports for various canard type aircraft. There >isn't much of a database built up yet for Cozys (thank goodness), >but there are quite a few Long EZ accident reports. > >In perusing these, it quickly becomes apparant that two causes which >stand out are pilot stupidity (buzzing, VFR flight into weather, etc.), >and engine/fuel problems (one Long EZ was flown(?) without fuel pumps >installed!!!!!!. Another suffered fuel starvation when teflon tape >plugged his fuel line.) > The URL is: http://canard.com/ntsb/ They don't want this URL given outside of the group of canard builders and flyers yet, it's not hooked into their main page (at least a message on the list from the first posting said this). I concluded the same as Jim: most centered around various fuel-related problems, and stupidity. The lesson I took away from this: I must be doubly careful when I build any component related to fuel storage, transport and ignition. I will go out of my way to insure the hoses are correct, the fittings exactly installed, throttle linkages checked and checked again, etc. If half of the potential accidents waiting to get me can be avoided simply by being unusually careful when building fuel-related components... (Sure, we all expect to be "unusually careful" with everything we build, but every one of those guys on the list of accidents thought the same and it got them anyway. Just goes to show that particular attention seems to be warranted on the fuel system). -- Darren DeLoach Sales & Software http://www.deloach.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Re: COZY: NTSB Accident Reports Date: Fri, 2 May 97 11:52:36 EDT Steve Campbell wrote; >(One had the wings attached only with paint and caulk.) So, what's your point here, Steve? You don't think paint and caulk are sufficient wing attach fittings? Now, if they tried it with caulk alone, without the paint assist, I'd agree. Where's your sense of adventure? :-). I'm always amazed by how many people are perfectly willing to fly an airplane without doing a weight and balance on it. Ever - not just before a particular flight that they've done before in exactly the same configuration. And not just canard flyers - read through those NTSB reports - this goes for homebuilders and spam can flyers alike. I tell my wife when she worries about flying in the plane that she doesn't have to worry about the plane - she has to worry about me being an idiot. If we can prevent that (and it seems like we can, using a judicious amount of oversight from others at all stages of building and testing), then we'll be fine. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 23:47:26 -0400 (EDT) From: SBLANKDDS@aol.com Subject: COZY: Re: Reid S. Engine Purchase Reid, Sounds like a good purchase, but you know more about engines than me!!! Concerned with "Lot of grass strips and mountains". Stick to the basic hard surfaced runway until you have thoroughly tested your experimental aircraft and your EXPERIMENTAL engine. Find a long grass strip with out trees at the end and actually measure the distance required to clear that 50' oak tree, don't estimate. (Oak is harder than foam and glass). It would be great for the group to see the actual difference in distances paved vs. grass, with your specific tire size at various takeoff weights, and wet vs dry grass. You are testing something new, go slow and write the book before you visit a mountain. You may get in but not out??? I recall reading about one Cozy IV builder who was signed off after the required 25 hours, and promptly relocated his Cozy to a mountain strip only to kill himself by running off the edge into a tree. Learn from others, it is always easier..... Best wishes. Steve Blank Cozy Mark IV #36 Port St. Lucie, FLA Installing the Speed Brake and Wayne Lanza's electric actuator. From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: COZY: Last post about NTSB Stats. I promise. Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 10:23:38 Fellow enthusiasts, I checked with Wayne Wright and we was enthusiastic about sharing this information with the "Unofficial Cozy mailing list" (did I get that right Mark?). So in case you missed it, here is the URL: http://www.canard.com/ntsb/ Check it out. Wayne has expanded it considerably and has now included some spam cans as well. Here's my unofficial summary of the LE/VE accidents and the concluding paragraph of an article I wrote for our chapter newsletter on it: Cause Injuries Fatalities Total None Minor Serious Fuel Exhaustion 8 3 7 4 22 Engine Failure 7 8 4 4 23 Loss of Control 7 6 4 14 31 Prop Failure 1 3 2 1 7 VFR into IFR 0 0 1 11 12 Miscellaneous 5 2 1 10 19 Three lessons were learned from all of this: 1) We pilots will do incredibly dumb things, like low level aerobatics in a plane specifically designed not to do them, or an ATP taking off into hard IFR with a VFR airplane. Fly only for the missions that the plane and the pilot are prepared for. Buzzing is an accident waiting to happen. 2) Murphy is quite ingenious in coming up with ways to keep the fuel away from the engine. Get the fuel system correct and have someone (or better yet, multiple someones) verify that it is correct. Verify the correct operation of the fuel tank select switch, if it has one, and if possible, use some sort of low fuel warning light. Make sure that your throttle and mixture cables and your hoses are properly installed, have sufficient clearance, and are correctly secured. 3) Make sure that both the pilot and the plane are ready before that first flight, and then start out gradually. Failure to set up the plane properly was less common, but often resulted in spectacularly catastrophic results. Have your plane inspected often during building and as the fly off hours accumulate. The more that you have experienced people that look it over the better. Make use of EAA advisors, shop visits, pre- preflight inspections, etc. Have a builder experienced in your type look over your work. As the old saying goes: "Flying is not especially dangerous, it is just extremely unforgiving". Most accidents are caused by a lapse in judgement on the part of the pilot or the builder. We all make mistakes. By working with other builders and pilots you can reduce the probability that your mistakes will cost you your plane or your life. Fly safe and keep experimental aircraft free. Steve **************************************** Stephen A. Campbell Associate Professor, EE University of Minnesota ***************************************** Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 19:47:19 -0700 From: rfisher@spacetech.com Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Reid S. Engine Purchase On Sat, 3 May 1997, SBLANKDDS@aol.com wrote: >Concerned with "Lot of grass strips and mountains". Stick to the basic hard >surfaced runway until you have thoroughly tested your experimental aircraft >and your EXPERIMENTAL engine. Find a long grass strip with out trees at the >end and actually measure the distance required to clear that 50' oak tree, >don't estimate. (Oak is harder than foam and glass). I too am concerned. It is my understanding that the landing gear was not designed for "off-road" use and that Nat strongly recommends against it. Are you doing something to beef up the gear? The nosegear in particular looks as though it would buckle if you found that unexpected woodchuck hole. See ya, Russ Fisher Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 08:05:52 -0400 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Canards on grass runways re "It is my understanding that the landing gear was not designed for "off-road" use and that Nat strongly recommends against it. Are you doing something to beef up the gear?" My 2 cents worth. I built and flew a Long EZ for 6 years and it was my experience that the gear was OK for reasonably smooth grass operation but the prop wasn't. I made 3 take offs from a very nice grass runway and had to refinish the prop each time. (it takes about 3 times for me to learn anything, although I am on my 2nd marriage and it is working) dd MKIV #155 (almost to engine start stage) Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:19:47 +0000 From: Robin du Bois Subject: Re: COZY: Earth to anyone, earth to anyone. -Reply AlWick@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-04-09 13:50:19 EDT, you write: > > << Another thought I have on this subject is the guys who are > flying already could with great courage share some of the baddies, ie. > the odd wheel up etc. Pilot errors and more, NOT to be criticised by us > but to learn from your experiences, like Marc's Taxi error etc. ( sorry > Marc. Quickie! ) > >> > > Very difficult to get completed pilots involved. Not much in it for them > except criticism. This is a pretty good group, but I've seen others where a > genuine expert gets blasted and then slowly quits contributing. Unfortunate. > I found a note from the past when cleaning up...in re the above: While I was building I found "completed pilots" (interesting implications in that phrase!) were only occasionaly helpful, more were standoffish and gave an impression of disdain...I resented this at the time and still think it a shame. If I seldom write the group it is only because you all get along just fine by yourselves and need no input beyond a little help tying down!! Best to all Robin Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:08:24 From: Bob Nuckolls Subject: COZY: Trim runawy . . . >I have done multiple takeoffs with the trim in the full nose up position >(left over from the previous touch and go)and although the stick pressures >are a little stiff, there isn't a problem flying the plane in that >configuration. . . . . . . > . . . . . My plane is very capable of >flying with full up trim, with me forceably pushing the stick forward to >get an adequate cruise to the closest field where I would land without >problems. > >I am not saying that a trim runaway would not be a problem, I was taking >issue with the fact that it would be difficult to land safely in one of >these conditions. . . . I am pleased that you have taken the time and trouble to explore the corners of the envelope on your own terms. You have a distinct advantage over many other pilots (1) you've acquired some knowlege as to the boundries on problems you may be presented with in the future (2) you have "flown" the airplane and convinced yourself that pilot workload in any possible situations is reasonable and (3) should the worst happen, it isn't a total surprise for which you have no previously considered response. Plan B for that situation is alive and well in your cockpit. Would that all spam can pilots know their airplanes so well. Somebody made a statement that their particular aircraft's out of trim limts were no worse than a 172 and no big deal . . Hmmmm . . . There are three models of 172 on the field where I fly most often . . . got to fly Young Eagles out there next Sat . . . I think I'm going to spend a few minutes in each of those airplanes and see if my own calibration agrees with the statement. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= | | | Go ahead, make my day . . . . | | Show me where I'm wrong. | ================================= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:22:27 From: Bob Nuckolls Subject: COZY: Runaway trim . . . >Bob, > >I think his statement about control may be valid for a Mark IV Kitfox >as it uses a trim tab (i think). But a Series 5 uses the stab for >trim control... This stab is much more powerful than a trim tab. >I will try to do some testing in the next week and report my findings. Very good! That's a most valuable service. >From another respondent: >I think I have a reasonably fair general knowledge of flight >characteristics even though I have not yet completed pilot training, but >I am wondering about a comment you made in your most recent letter on >>electric trim. You said "Trims in a mechanical limit on these airplanes >produces a barely flyable airplane". Is it not true that trimming out an >airplane should never require full range of operational limits? I'd suggest that the converse argument be made. Mechnical stops on pitch trim should be set to allow only necessary trim settings to accomodate the airplane over it's speed/c.g. envelope. >Or was >that the point you were making when you were referring to the builders >who connected the servos to the tabs? I would think it would be easy to >design a bracket that would limit trim movement but not limit full range >of motion for normal flying maneovers. Exactly. One of the airplanes I'm working with was built with 6" wide tabs that run the full length of the elevators on BOTH sides. The builders installed dual trim actuators. A common complaint now is "Gee . . . I just barely touch the trim control and it moves too far." Further investigation shows that the full range of NEEDED trim is only about 10% of AVAILABLE trim. Electric actuators on this airplane is an accident waiting for a place to happen. Even if one sets good mechanical limits to cover the speed/c.g. envelope it's still important to know how the airplane behaves should trim be forced to either limit. I know that doing touch and go landings in an A-36 can make the critter a handful if you don't give the trim wheel about three good throws of nose down before you put power back in for takeoff. Mechanical stops are a good thing but it's not the whole answer . . . the whole discussiont about trim runaway is unresolvable until the trim system is analyzed for EACH airframe. Another ON-POINT comment: >Most of the airplanes I've flown were still flyable with trim in both max up >or down. The difference between the situation of Doug's and Graham's, is >that Doug induced the situation, was expecting what would happen, and >therefore was ready for it and was able to deal with it. In Graham's case, >he was caught by surprise, had only milliseconds to make a decision, and >elected to put it back on the ground. I've read several NTSB accident >briefs that indicated that a pilot should have been able to handle a certain >situation, ie., out of trim, etc., but for reasons of surprise and denial, >wasn't able and either made the wrong decision or lost control of the >aircraft. Had the pilot been expecting it the situation probably would have >been easily overcome. I think the surprise and panic of a situation can put >a person's brain into "lockup" momentarily which is all that it may take for >disaster to occur. Fortunately, most of us will never be faced with having >to find out what sort of ice we have in our veins. > No truer words spoken . . . see why I'm so rabid about cockpit simplicity and architectures for Plan A/Plan B training? Look through any 100 NTSB accident reports and compare numbers of accidents with human factors contributions versus mechanical failures. Like people who write regulations, it's an easy knock-off to say we've deduced procedures or put tools in place for every contingency . . . but you cannot regulate pilot attitudes, perceptions and operating skills with an element of surprise. You can train but who has the time or dollars and how many would submit to mandatory training? Only I can take on responsability for how well I can perform. In my limited experience in airplanes, my pucker-factor has peaked at over 100 psi on several occasions and none had anything to do with mechanics. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= | | | Go ahead, make my day . . . . | | Show me where I'm wrong. | ================================= Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:01:51 -0400 From: Ian Douglas Organization: WTC Subject: Re: COZY: Trim runawy . . . As a recent owner/driver of a spam can (Seneca) I must say that I was impressed with the autopilot and trim controls in the aircraft. They are designed in such a way as to allow manual override AND there are buttons that turn on/off each of the systems (trim / heading / altitude). I don't mean to say that we "require" the same level of detail but I intend to impliment a manual trim system with a friction drive the same as the Seneca used, as it was quite easily overridden by the manual control. There was an autopilot disconnect button in the trim switch which I intend copy. The infinity stick grip (which I plan to use - still deciding what button will go where) will have trim on/off. Speaking of buttons on the stick who is putting what where? Gear and start will not be on the grip as I don't want either of those accidentally pressed and since they are part of a check list, I want a positive body movement (never did a gear up landing and don't want to). What works for me may not work for others... -- Ian D.S. Douglas MK0069 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:48:30 -0700 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero Subject: COZY: Re: Trim runawy . . . Hi Ian and All, >The infinity stick grip (which I plan to use - still deciding what button will go where) will have trim on/off.< I've mentioned this before of what Todd did, but by having a pit pin connecting one end of the linear actuator pitch trim motor into the mechanical pitch trim system that can easily be reached next to your leg is what Todd Morgan did in his '95 EAA Grand Champion Cozy. He won the Stan Dzke(sp?) Safety Award at Osh '95 for this system. The pit pin would be your 'OFF' button for the pitch trim to easily physically remove the motor off the pitch trim system, and more importantly, takes a trim motor fighting you out of the loop and you revert back to the mechanical trim system. >Speaking of buttons on the stick who is putting what where? Gear and start will not be on the grip as I don't want either of those accidentally pressed and since they are part of a check list, I want a positive body movement (never did a gear up landing and don't want to). Most everyone has a toggle switch in position 3 for the belly board, and position 5 is the autopilot disconnect. My pet peeves (in this order) are the engine start, fuel pump, strobes and landing light need to be on the stick and/or throttle handle (that's one of the many reasons why we are working on a throttle handle and quadrat) - food for thought. Ian and all, we will put whatever switch you want in positions 3, 4, 5 and 6 :-). To avoid bumping the engine start switch, the button is flush with the front bottom curvature of the throttle handle and operated with the middle finger. If you want the start switch on the stick, put it in position 6 which is the most out of the way position. If you are still worried about bumping it, the starter can be disabled with an airspeed switch "T'd" into the pitot static system, disabling the starter if there is any airspeed on the plane. Or, there are other ways to ensure the starter will not engage. I also use the airspeed switches "T'd" into the pitot static system to keep the gear from coming up on deck (which is in series with the canopy switch - double redundant), warns if the gear is not down, turns the transponder and strobe lights ON and OFF when armed (I can still turn them ON or OFF with my OFF/ARMED/ON switch). Mooney does this too. When the gear comes down, the landing light(s) come ON - yes, even during the day. The military does this too. When the sun goes down or it's just a dark day, the instrument lights, nav lights and strobe lights come ON via a photo cell that is adjustable in light sensitivity - I still have manual control with the OFF/ARMED/ON switches for each, and the instrument panel lights are still adjustable to pilots taste. >What works for me may not work for others...< Yeap. That's why by having 8 kinds of switches available to customize positions 3, 4, 5 and 6, I have 65,536 stick grip combinations - these grips can accommodate anybody :-). HTH. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:03:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Trim runawy . . . L> the middle finger. If you want the start switch on the stick, put L> it in position 6 which is the most out of the way position. If L> you are still worried about bumping it, the starter can be L> disabled with an airspeed switch "T'd" into the pitot static L> system, disabling the starter if there is any airspeed on the L> plane. Or, there are other ways to ensure the starter will not L> engage. Yikes don't do this! Whatiffs, You have a engine problem, and you want to use the starter to try something in a glide. This would disable one of your options. There are intermittents that would make you want to hit the starter. Things like carb ice, or fuel starvation due to bone head pilot (me) forgot to switch tanks, mags that are giving trouble, and probably others. Sure the prop normally windmills, but it can stop. I kinda like having the button handy on the stick, but I might not disable the starter with just airspeed. Maybe others feel different. Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:09:44 -0700 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Organization: INFINITY Aerospace - http://www.flash.net/~infaero Subject: COZY: Re: Trim runawy . . . Hi Tom and All, >Tom Brusehaver wrote: >Yikes don't do this! >Whatiffs, You have a engine problem, and you want to use the starter to try something in a glide. This would disable one of your options.< Yeap, just relaying what some have said they were going to do in spite of warnings not to - they had their reasons. I personally would not disable my starter - just be careful :-). If you are gliding, the engine is wind milling with a fixed pitch prop and you shouldn't hit the start button anyway. If you have a constant speed prop that is featherable and un-feather it, the engine will start up on its own if you are 120+ IAS. If you are not fast enough and don't have the altitude, you will need the starter, so shouldn't use the airspeed switch to disable the starter. I've had a fixed pitch prop windmill down to about 60, but it took 120+ to get it to windmill once it stopped. >There are intermittents that would make you want to hit the starter. Things like carb ice, or fuel starvation due to bone head pilot (me) forgot to switch tanks, mags that are giving trouble, and probably others. Sure the prop normally windmills, but it can stop.< Yeap, and see above. >I kinda like having the button handy on the stick, but I might not disable the starter with just airspeed.< Some are disabling the starter by the alternator - if the prop is wind milling the alternator is putting out 'X' amount of juice so they disable the starter. HTH some more. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:55:57 -0500 (CDT) From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Subject: COZY: Pay attention to little things - Cracked Cylinder The other day, after a flight I was moving the propeller to the horizontal position, and I hear a light swish of air, that wasn't usually there. I suspected a valve leaking, and anticipated some work in the immediate future to minimize damage. Last night while trying to pinpoint what cylinder it was, I noticed air breezing across my finger as I moved the prop to make the noise. It wasn't very long before I identified a crack on the head at top of the cylinder, between fins. The crack was less than an inch long. If these cracks are left to continue, the top cylinder head separates from the cylinder resulting many times in a engine fire. The moral to the story: Pay attention to the smallest details. How may of you, EVERY time you walk up to you automobile, look for leaking liquids, low tires, or nails in the tires? How much force does it require to move your plane into its parking space (where the surface condition slope is always the same) more than usual - low tire pressure, dragging brakes? Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 11:36:53 -0800 From: Stetson Elliott Subject: Re: COZY: Pay attention to little things - Cracked Cylinder Someone recently wrote: > The other day, after a flight I was moving the propeller to the > horizontal > position, and I > hear a light swish of air, that wasn't usually there. I suspected a > valve > leaking, and > anticipated some work in the immediate future to minimize damage. Last > > night while trying > to pinpoint what cylinder it was, I noticed air breezing across my > finger > as I moved the > prop to make the noise. It wasn't very long before I identified a > crack on > the head at top > of the cylinder, between fins. Please forgive me if this is obvious to everyone, but my preflight always includes propping the engine over 4 blades. This gives me a fairly accurate estimation of what the compression is on all 4 cylinders before flight. -- Stet Elliott flyez@earthlink.net Long-EZ N321EF Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 11:46:45 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: re: What I learned about real IFR today . . . >So I guess each pilot has to evaluate their own abilities/needs. >I know it is easy for us to get to reliant on a lot of gadgets to where >we get rusty with the basics, but my vote is that an RV has more of a >need for an Auto pilot for IFR than a lot of other airplanes that they >are typically used in Years ago, Mooney (the hot-rod of the period) had a standard offering in their airplanes called "PC" or "positive control". It was nothing more than a pneumatic wing leveler (Brittian as I recall) that tied the turn coordinator to the ailerons via very simple, "juice can" actuators. The whole thing ran off of vacuum pump (except turn coordinator which was electric). This system was always on. It could be momentarily diabled by punching a button on the wheel but if one chose to simply override it and put the airplane back on course, there were no smoking motors, squealing clutches or sweating pilots. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for those actuators. While bulky, they were light. They had only two moving parts. With modern materials, they could be built to expect extremely long service life . . . probably never touched over lifetime of an airplane. If the volumes were high enough, there's no reason a modern incarnation of that system should sell for more than 5-600 dollars. IMHO the basic wing-leveler is as important as your VOR/ILS system in any suite of IFR equipment. Bob . . . AeroElectric Connection //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= | | | Go ahead, make my day . . . . | | Show me where I'm wrong. | ================================= Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 21:51:06 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: re: What I learned about real IFR today . . . Bob, I've flown a Mooney with the PC system. It is somewhat of a nuisance in that you have to hold a yoke button in to make a turn, but it is my understanding that it saved more than one VFR pilot who got into trouble in weather. dd Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 09:28:14 -0600 (CST) From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: Cosy operating Costs I> Who needs them for fairweather flying? I get the maps required I> for the flight when needed (6.50 per map). I would never I> purposely fly single engine in IMC. Having an instrument ticket, I would, (and do) within reason of course. If the stuff below me is a long way down (2-3Kft ceilings), then I have no problem flying single engine IFR. If the airport I am flying to is clouded over (ever notice it can be clear 5 miles from an airport, but there is this cloud right over the airport), and I have an alternate that will work, I will shoot an approach, but I keep plan B wide open. I> I can I> tell you that flying in IMC on a single engine would send the I> "pucker factor" sky rocketing esp. if I know I'm close to I> minimums. I have to agree, I can't imagine flying a 3 hour trip in solid IFR, and do an aproach in driving rain to minimums. Just too much stress especially for folks who don't do something like that regularly. Being instrument current doesn't mean instrument proficient. I> I think that flying ,for me any way, is something to be I> enjoyed. I will never fly on a "required" schedule again (If I I> HAVE to be there, I'll hop on a comercial flight first). I think you are correct. I love a challenge, but if things are going bad on an approach, I'll miss early. If the weather is right, there is nothing wrong with flying IFR for fun. Ice and thunderstorms take the fun out of it though. If you just got a low ceiling, and no winds, you know the clouds will be there for hours, it is fun to fly in them (through them?). Be careful up there. Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:02:50 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Cosy operating Costs Tom, re "If the weather is right, there is nothing wrong with flying IFR for fun. Ice and thunderstorms take the fun out of it though." Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. Any of you guys ever have a whiskey compass fail? I have, it somehow gammed itself against a baffle, and it was IFR single engine. I am very gun shy of hard IFR single engine because there isn't enough built in redundancy. The old saying that if it can go wrong, it will, and it always happens when you least want it to. I also get very tense flying around in clouds without radar, I guess you could say one gets spoiled using it. Deiceing equipment is very nice to have. I remember one trip when this guy in a Cherokee iced up on V44 off Long Island sound. I heard him say his engine was quiting and he was out over the very cold Atlantic. Kennedy approach gave him a vector toward the shore as his engine quit. He broke at about 400 feet and right in front of him was an empty beach...the guy was very lucky to say the least. I am going to IFR my MKIV, but it will be soft IFR for sure. dd Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 09:54:15 -0500 From: Ian Douglas Organization: WTC Subject: Re: COZY: Cosy operating Costs Glen writes: > Sounds like you are using a grass strip. How long does a grass strip need > to be for a Cozy? I heard that grass takeoff and landings aren't recommend > because of the risk of prop damage. Strip is 4800', and is just as smooth as asphalt. I flew my Seneca off of this strip for a year and never got any prop damage (the Seneca props are only 8" from the ground). I suffered a number of fairly large dings in the left prop when stones where picked up at the Rockcliffe airport (a paved airport) 2 days after my props were 0 timed (about 7,000 worth of damage) so I know what it costs. The Embrun strip is not some backyard farm field, it is rolled and maintained better than most of the paved strips in the area. Nigel Field flys his LE off of the same strip, and as far as I know, he has NEVER suffered any damage due to field conditions. -- Ian D.S. Douglas MK0069 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:22:45 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Cosy operating Costs Nothing wrong with grass if it is maintained like pavement (meticulously). I have 6.5 acres that I used to mow all the time. To keep it smooth requires rolling at least once a year, regular mowing, and is a definite function of soil conditions and type (clay, sand, etc) and turf grass specie (spelling). If one knows whats there, FINE!, if not, the grass strip on the sectional may be a nightmare waiting to happen. Even if pavement is poor condition (joints not maintained properly, kept clean of debris, etc) can be a nightmare.