Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:08:18 -0500 From: Gary Dwinal Subject: COZY: Exhaust Pipes Hi Folks, I have already bought my exhaust system for my Cozy/AeroCanard and have them installed but I am very interested in the pipes that exit inside the cooling outlet. Or, I would also be interested in a 4 into 1 exhaust system. Does anyone know where I could purchase either one. I think Hal Hunt makes the "inside" pipes but I don't know how to get in touch with him. I have seen the 4 into 1 system on a Velocity at Osh Kosh but have no idea who makes them. Are they a tuned system with all pipes being the same length? What I don't like about the system I have is the rear two pipes are way too short for the engine to run with a high rate of volumetric efficiency. In my past life I used to build racing engines ( V6 and V8 race cars ) and realize there is a real possibility for significant horsepower gains from having an efficient exhaust system. I know Lycoming engines ( 0-360-A1A ) run at a relatively low RPM but we are still pumping lots of air through these large 360 cubic inch engines. Thanks in advance for any help. Gary Dwinal From: Epplin John A Subject: COZY: Alternator belt Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:13:11 -0600 Have a 0360-A1A with as 40 amp Denso alternator installed by Pro Aero of Canada. It came without the alternator belt. Anyone have a part no. that has a good track record for this arrangement? Thanks again John Epplin Mk4 #467 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:21:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Alternator belt There are several issues to find the correct belt: 1: The belt crossection could be a fractional horsepower (light) belt series or an "A" belt series. Borrow one of each and see which fits the pulleys. (BOth engine and alternator. 2; The 2 series measure length different, one an O.D. and the othe I.D.. Trial and error length. 3: Gates brand belts are preferred, but any good quality belt should work. 4: Some belts have notches on the I.D., thats better if you have a small diameter pulley. a 20 amp alternator is mighty small, have you added up the electric load. Thats barely enough for minimal radio and position lights, and no strobes, landing lights, or etc. From: Epplin John A Subject: COZY: Engine primer Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:50:06 -0600 I have an O360-A1A that was purchased with an Ellison TB injection unit. It does not have a primer system. Also have the solenoid valve etc but do not have the nozzles or plumbing. Anyone have any suggestions on the best way to go? Where to get nozzles, use stainless or copper lines on the engine etc. Thanks for any suggestions. John Epplin Mk4 #467 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:19:22 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engine primer John, The primer nozzles are available from Wicks. I am using copper and have installed the nozzles (one each cylinder) in the injector ports on the top of the cylinders. So far so good, i.e,, no leaks and it starts like right now. dd N10CZ MKIV #155 About 60 hours TT with used engine removed for OH Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:07:36 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: Electric Primer Any who have read my rantings for long know of my affection for failure tolerant systems. I've been watching a thread on electric primers wondering if anyone would remember some words I wrote in Appendix Z to the 'Connection which I repeat here as follows: --------- Note 14. Consider installing an electric solenoid valve between the pressure side of your fuel system and the primer ports on your engine. Aircraft Spruce offers a suitable electrically operated valve for primer service. Further, consider using a 4 or 6 port primer system (depending on the number of cylinders on your engine). Two advantages: (1) no wet fuel lines in the cabin, (2) many an engine plagued with a plugged carburetor or broken mixture control has been kept running to an uneventful landing by a multi-port primer system. This setup will perform very nicely in such circumstances. Throttle full open. Tease the boost pump switch as required to develop considerable power and pick a landing spot well beyond your normal glide ratio! ---------- Some of my builders have gone a step further and installed a needle valve in the line downstream of the solenoid valve. With a bit of tinkering, the right combo of needle valve setting and throttle position was determined for getting 60-75% power with mixture at idle-cutoff. The also plumbed the primer valve into its own pump with a separate feed from the last-tank-to-drain in their standard flight procedures. What results is a totally independent, fuel supply system that will keep an engine running. One of my builders was able to use this feature to his advantage about 8 years ago when the mixture control on his Long-Ez became detached. He flew an additional 45 mintues to a much more desirable airport where repairs were quickly accomplished. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < If you continue to do > < What you've always done > < You will continue to be > < What you've always been. > ================================= From: Wayne Hicks Subject: COZY: George Shell's Long EZ Downdraft Cooling Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:14:28 -0500 Thanks to bil kleb, you can now view pictures of George's downdraft cooling at: http://www.geocities.com/~kleb/homebuilt/shell __________________________________________ L. Wayne Hicks SpaceTec Sr. Engineer 3221 North Armistead Ave 757-865-0900 phone Hampton, VA 23666 757-865-8960 fax http://www.spacetec-inc.com Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:18:34 -0500 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator People; So I receive my engine mount today and unpack it. I bring it over to the firewall to see how well it fits, and danged if the gascolator isn't smack dab in the way of the lower left diagonal brace! I pulled out M-29 to ensure that the engine mount meets the dimensional requirements of the drawing, and as far as I can tell it does. I looked at the instructions for mounting the gascolator again (for the 374th time) and I seem to have it in the suggested place (+/- 1/2"). Now, it seems to me that there's almost no place on the lower firewall where I'd be able to mount the gascolator where it wouldn't be in the way of the lower diagonal (or where I wouldn't have a hell of a time routing the fuel lines. What did the rest of you people do? Does anyone have a photograph of their firewall they can email me? There's no picture of the firewall (with gascolator/engine mount installed) in the plans, AFAIK. I don't want to lift the gascolator up higher - it's supposed to be the lowest point in the fuel system, I believe. The plans show it off center with the bottom sticking into the NACA scoop area - the measurements I've taken of gascolator size and engine mount dimensions indicate that if I mount the gascolator dead center just behind the spot where all four engine mount diagonals join together, I MIGHT have a few thousanths of clearance. The other option is to space it much further off the firewall, but until I've got the engine on, I don't know what ELSE it might interfere with...... What am I doing wrong? P.S. - for those of you who need to hear this, please, please don't quote my whole message in your reply. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin marcz@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:25:15 -0800 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator "Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote: > What am I doing wrong? > How's that for a reduced quote :-) ? While my situation is a little different (fuel injected) from yours, here's what I did. I am using the Andair gascolator, but as I remember, it's essentially the same size and mounts the same way as the ACS one. I got mine to fit so that the bottom of the gascolator is even with the bottom of the NACA scoop opening. This way I can get to the drain without removing the lower cowl to check for water. I believe I saw this same arrangement on Nat's plane. Just like you, I could not find any other location where it would fit and be at the lowest possible point without interfering with the mount. However, this location is still well below the sumps. I'll take a few pictures tonight and send them to you. Eric Westland Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:56:04 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator >"Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote: > >> What am I doing wrong? >> >Eric Westland wrote: However, this location is >still well below the sumps. I don't know how the Cozy may differ from the Long EZ in this specific area, but there is a related subject I want to point out. I believe that Eirc's take on this is fine, and I wanted to add this consideration: Think in terms of a really bad landing that will tear your main gear off, and drop the plane onto its bottom rear, and scrape and drag along. This is how the gear are intended to fail under these conditions. Make sure that this occurrance won't rip some vulnerable part of your fuel system off and make a minor problem a major one. FWIW. Howard Rogers --Howard Rogers 650-926-4052 hrogers@slac.stanford.edu pager: 650-997-1089 Web Page: http://www.stanford.edu/~hrogers/index.htm New! email directly to my pager (approximately 50 word limit). Try it!: 6509971089@alphapage.airtouch.com Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:18:33 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator Marc, Since I have my engine removed at this time, it was easy to take a few measurements at the gascolator and engine mount. My gascolator is a full inch forward of the lower left engine mount structure. The device is up close to the firewall. I have it secured with two DG clamps around the fuel lines. I did not use the mount bracket that came with the gascolator. The DG clamps are mounted to the firewall with AN3 bolts and stand off from the firewall about 1 inch. Standoffs are aluminum tubing about 1 inch. Hope this helps. dd From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:57:34 -0600 John, It will be just fine if you don't get a bad batch and it later springs a leak. I think this is what I used on my fuel lines in the 80s. And then one day, as I was preflighting the prototype 4-place with the fuel pump on, there was this huge fuel leak, right through the stainless braid (good thing it didn't happen when I was flying). I was told by Vargas (they have an Aeroquip shop) that no one else that bought this same batch had complained. I found out later that there were many complaints after mine--I was the first one, and they eventually had a recall. RAF confirmed that Teflon was the premier stuff, and that is when I switched. You might be lucky and get a good batch. Regards, Nat ---------- > From: Epplin John A > To: cozy builders > Subject: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines > Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:15 PM > > Looking at Wicks catalog for 666 hose and end fittings. The hose in -8, > recommended by Nat, is almost $10 per foot, not unexpected but the end > fittings are $38 each. This is a bit painful! Would Stratoflex 156, > MIL-H-83797 be adequate? Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base oils, > JP fuel, aviation gasoline. Not affected by alcohols etc. Price is $11 per > foot but the fittings are $15 each. Makes total cost easier to handle. Any > Cozy experience with this out there? > > Thanks, > > John Epplin Mk4 #467 From: Todd Carrico Subject: RE: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:30:26 -0800 If this Aeroquip 666, your talking about Teflon hose. If this is Teflon, those fittings are probably "reusable". They would be stainless and heavy for -8. I spent a couple of years at Superior in the hose shop. We used a crimp style fitting. Much lighter, but it took a $50,000 machine to fabricate them. I believe the 308 hose (MIL-H-83797??, Black rubber, thick wall, 1500 PSI I think) was what we used for oil cooler lines with a -12/-14 firesleeve. Teflon would be premium hose for this application. It is usually used for the higher pressure applications, and IMHO would be overkill. You may try contacting a Stratoflex hose shop to what material they use for oil cooler lines. As I remember their stuff was a little friendlier to use in the "Field", and if aluminum, lighter too!! Todd Carrico From ???@??? Tue Feb 16 23:17:31 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id SAA10157 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA06491 for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_buiFrom ???@??? Tue Feb 16 23:17:31 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id SAA10157 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA06491 for cozy_builders-list; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from gatekeep.uscc.com (relay1.uscc.com [205.229.240.3]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA06483 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:28:23 -0500 From: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com Received: from cellular.uscc.com (cellular.uscc.com [165.27.237.27]) by gatekeep.uscc.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA20880 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:14:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ccMail by cellular.uscc.com (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25) id AA919117438; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:24:01 -0600 Message-Id: <9902159191.AA919117438@cellular.uscc.com> X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.20.00.25 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:55:58 -0600 To: Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part" Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lschuler@cellular.uscc.com X-UIDL: 9ed27e1f97617ebbdcf1c67f0a59ba4d John Epplin wrote: >Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base oils, JP fuel, aviation >gasoline. Not affected by alcohols etc. >Any Cozy experience with this out there? Sorry no experience yet (I wish!). Maybe just an oversight while typing, but you didn't mention temperature or pressure. I'd want to make sure those specs are appropriate for the application also; ditto with the fittings. Larry From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:25:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines GEt prices from Varga Enterprises 1-800-966-6936. They had best prices for teflon 6 years ago, and their service was great. They will be crimped fittings with fire sleeve if requested. I was shown Stratoflex at OSH, and liked its construction better than the other Teflons. It could be bent to tighter radius without damage. The regular teflon is a plain plastic tube, similar in appearance to nylaflow, slipped into a stainless steel braid. The fire sleeve is then slipped over the braid. IF the teflon is kinked, its scrap. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 18:21:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines There was a rash of rubber (neoprene or whatever) oil and fuel hose failures about 6 years ago, and a rush to replace with teflon. Apparently it was not limited to one manufacturer, where a bad batch was the issue. I have concern for the teflon hoses - the installation MUST be correct, allowing for movement, held snugly with cushion clamps, but not too tight, not twisted (if angle fittings at both ends, must be ordered with correct orientation, or if straight, not twisted while tightening the nut). Find the Parker Hannifin, Aeroquip, or other industrial hydraulics installation manual, and follow recommendations. All fitting in the engine compartment should be steel. There are 2 varieties, those forged or machined from one piece, and those made from several pieces spigoted together and brazed. Use only the one piece type. The oddball fittings that are not available from aircraft sources can be had from industrial hydraulic houses. The flare is 37 degree, and you will also find straight thread O-ring type (fuel pumps, and others), and tapered pipe thread. Don't mistake and use the wrong one. Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:58:18 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines >Looking at Wicks catalog for 666 hose and end fittings. The hose in -8, >recommended by Nat, is almost $10 per foot, not unexpected but the end >fittings are $38 each. This is a bit painful! Would Stratoflex 156, >MIL-H-83797 be adequate? Specs look OK to me, good for petroleum base oils, >JP fuel, aviation gasoline. Not affected by alcohols etc. Price is $11 per >foot but the fittings are $15 each. Makes total cost easier to handle. Any >Cozy experience with this out there? > >Thanks, > >John Epplin Mk4 #467 John, There is a lot of good advice that has already been stated here, so I would just like to add an additional 2 cents worth. Though the fittings are expensive, they are re-usable. That makes regular replacement easier, and cheaper, since you only have to buy the hose. If you go this route, be sure to get the appropriate mandrels, or your hose assemblies cannot be considered reliable. There is a way to make your own mandrels quite easily, but it is beyond the scope of a verbal discussion here. Another suggestion would be to visit a local aircraft junkyard for the hoses/fittings, if there is such a thing in your neighborhood. Even if there isn't, there are a couple of really big ones in Trade-a-Plane that could help you out. --Howard Rogers --Howard Rogers 650-926-4052 hrogers@slac.stanford.edu pager: 650-997-1089 Web Page: http://www.stanford.edu/~hrogers/index.htm New! email directly to my pager (approximately 50 word limit). Try it!: 6509971089@alphapage.airtouch.com Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:21:46 -0800 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines John, You may want to check out the teflon smooth bore hoses at Tampa Rubber and Gasket. I bought some from them (the conductive liner ones), the specs listed meet or exceed the Stratoflex and come with stainless steel fittings that are crimped on at the factory. The only difference I could tell from examining them to my "aircraft approved" hoses was the price, about 40% less. Their web site is http://www.tamparubber.com/HOSETEFL.HTM. Eric Westland From: Todd Carrico Subject: RE: COZY: Engine oil cooler lines Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:14:46 -0800 I would like to add a note about the re-usable Teflon fittings. Again, my experience is with Aeroquip. The smaller the reusable fittings, the harder it was to get them leak free. We only did them on special occasions, because our crimp style was much cheaper. -8 should be pretty easy. The braid opens easily, and the tube is pliable enough to get the "Collar" in with little effort (A table edge comes in handy). The only tools we used were a soft jawed bench vice, and box-end wrenches. We had the benefit of testing, and I would highly recommend that you get them tested. Industrial hose manufacturers may help here. Make sure the test facility has the 37 degree flare adapters for their equipment. The test procedure was simple. Twice operating pressure for Three minutes. We used water, and quite a bit of water soluble oil (It looked like skim milk). You cold make your own test fixture with a hand pump and a gauge, and use what ever fluid you like. I will take this extra step. It is cheap insurance. Bad batches are the least common form of leak. Improper assembly would be number one, improper installation (kinking, colapsing, etc.) would be number two. Bad batches are just easier to remember, and their effects are more widespread. Also, anything in the firewall area should have firesleeve. To install firesleeve properly, the ends should be sealed. We used a silicon product from AE, but high-temp silicone thinned to a "Slurry" would do as well. Cut your firesleeve about 1/8" longer per foot than your hose, dip the ends so the silicone wicks up for the length of the fitting. After the ends dry, slip the hose in, and clamp right under the B-Nut. Do not forget to remove the Firesleeve when inspecting hoses. This is very important!! You cannot possibly inspect a hose if you cannot see it. Your mileage may vary :-) Todd Carrico Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:58:54 -0500 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: Fwd: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator I wrote (I know, bad form to quote myself): >...... danged if the gascolator isn't smack >dab in the way of the lower left diagonal brace! >...... if I >mount the gascolator dead center just behind the spot where all four engine >mount diagonals join together, I MIGHT have a few thousanths of clearance. Thanks to Ed Richards, Chris Van Hoof, and Eric Westland for pictures of their (or Vance Atkinson's) firewalls, and thanks to Dave Domeier for his explanation. Eric and Ed both have the "Weldtech" engine mount. This mount does NOT match the COZY drawings, in that the diagonals are not in the specified place and there's a horizontal cross member that isn't in the plans. Clearly, you guys will not be able to call your planes "COZY's" :_) JUST A JOKE!! Dave, what engine mount do you have? Anyway, given the differences between the stock engine mount (which I bought from AeroCad and is apparently made by RANS for AeroCad exactly per plans), the Weldtech mount has a lot more room behind it down where the gascolator is supposed to mount. You people with Weldtech mounts will NOT have my problem. I have determined, however, that I will be able to mount the gascolator right in the middle of the diagonals and have a bit of space to spare - maybe 1/8" clearance or so. I also found some 10-32 threaded spacers in the hardware store today that I may use instead of the long bolts through hollow spacers. This would allow me to mount the spacers permanently to the firewall, and then just bolt the DG-12 clamps (for the life of me, I couldn't get a DG-11 to fit over the tubing fitting as called out in the plans) to the spacers. I'd use locktite. Or else I'll use a couple of nutplates glassed to the inside of the firewall and stay with the long bolts. Thanks again to those of you who sent pictures - they helped and explained a lot. When I get my setup done, I'll have pictures of what I did on the web pages - it may be a while. -- Marc J. Zeitlin marcz@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:43:31 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: Fwd: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator Marc, re " Dave, what engine mount do you have?" Mine came from Brock. dd From: "Will Chorley" Subject: Re: COZY: Chap. 23: Engine Mount and Gascolator Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:01:13 -0600 I put my gascolator in the "hell hole" with the drain coming down through the inspection hatch (of course, mine is a 3 place so it might no match). I did this because I got the Andair (English, (like me!), very nicely made (not sure that applies to me!), but pricey) and the "in" and "out" were in the wrong sides without some contorted plumbing. Putting it the other side of the firewall actually made the plumbing very easy. I used an off cut of engine mount angle for the bracket. (I got Nat's permission first !!!) I also got their fuel valve which is very nice and has a stop so you can't inadvertently turn it off. You have to lift a little plunger to get it to turn off. Just an idea. Will From ???@??? Sun Feb 28 22:54:34 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id WAA02601 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA21955 for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:38 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from enterprise.extremezone.com (enterprise.extremezone.com [208.129.255.5]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA21950 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 22:10:34 -0500 Received: from default (i087-2.phx.extremezone.com [208.152.73.87]) by enterprise.extremezone.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA19710; Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:57:43 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199903010257.TAA19710@enterprise.extremezone.com> From: "Nat Puffer" To: "Epplin John A" , Subject: Re: COZY: Engine installation Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:51:00 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Nat Puffer" X-UIDL: 2f1e2b3d435df2d389a9bc85a3563c62 John, If you are going to use the B&C right angle oil filter adapter, don't mount the oil cooler at the top of the firewall. The perfect place is mounted from the right wing butt, exhausting out the bottom of the cowling. I have a 13-row cooler mounted there and get 170-180 deg oil temperatures in summer in Arizona. Nat ---------- > From: Epplin John A > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Engine installation > Date: Sunday, February 28, 1999 8:22 PM > > The plans say to mount the oil cooler 1 in right of center. Does this mean > left edge of cooler 1 in right of center or center line of cooler 1 in to > right of center? I intend to use the B&C right angle oil filter adapter, > this may make a difference. I looked at the pictures and the oil filter is > not shown and it is not easy to judge just how far from center Nat has the > cooler mounted. > > Thanks for any help on this > > John Epplin Mk4 #46 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 21:21:47 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Engine installation Epplin said Check out the Lycoming unit, the vernatherm mounts on it, making it easy to inspect at the annual inspection. From: "Paul Stowitts" Subject: COZY: Filtered air Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 21:45:18 -0800 I'm in the process of installing the Airflow Performance fuel injection unit. The unit is a tight fit and I understand that some builders have unfiltered ram air and filtered alternate air. It would save a lot of time and work not filtering the ram air. Can anyone tell me the pros and cons of such an approach? Thanks for your help. Paul Stowitts Cozy Mark IV #200 Baffling completed (what a pain), working on panel, electrical and engine "stuff" - hope to be in the air this year. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:14:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Filtered air Stowitts asked For fuel injection either Bendix or Airflow, the only time you will use alternate air is if the air filter clogs. This will only happen under rather unusual circumstances like: flying through a volcano dust plume, a mess of insects, or icing conditions. Therefore nearly all air going into the engine will be ram air, and should be filtered for 2 reasons: 1. prevent ingestion of large particles (screws, tape, tree leaves and other debris either loose from in the cowling or kicked up by the nose wheel). This could cause sudden loss of power, and the alternate air should be screened with metal insect screening. The Bendix, and I assume Airflow servos (trottle body in automobile terms) have sensor tubes that are about 1/8" i.d. at the air inlet, these must be protected to prevent clogging. 2: prevent ingestion of abrasive particles into the engine. This is a long term issue, for what it costs to top overhaul an engine, should not even think about not filtering. Yes there are a few that don't filter, but those are usually race engines that don't last long for other reasons. I don't remember seeing an internal combustion piston engine without a filter, except race engines. Even my mowers, chainsaw, and weed eater have them. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 00:27:55 -0500 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: COZY: Chap. 23 - Mixture cable bracket, etc. People; While making the 1/16" aluminum mixture cable bracket called out in the plans for the Ellison Throttle Body, I saw that the large hole was supposed to be 1.06" Radius, or 2 1/8" diameter. I just happen to have a 2 1/4" hole saw I used for the small instrument holes in the Instrument Panel, so I measured the hole diameter in the Ellison (model 4-5 for an O-360). Magic - it's exactly 2 1/4", give or take the width of the lines on my scale. I used my hole saw and voila' (not viola :-) ), a perfect fit. Other engine installation info - I'm using the B&C right angle oil filter adapter as recommended by Nat - it's a beauty, and comes with everything needed, down to the safety wire for the Vernatherm. Also, if you order the engine chapter kit(s) from Wicks, for some reason the NAS1291-7 nuts for the engine/engine mount bolts aren't included - you have to order them seperately. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marcz@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: Chap. 23 - Mixture cable bracket, etc. Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:09:51 -0600 Mark writes: > People; > > While making the 1/16" aluminum mixture cable bracket called out in the > plans for the Ellison Throttle Body, I saw that the large hole was > supposed > to be 1.06" Radius, or 2 1/8" diameter. I just happen to have a 2 1/4" > hole saw I used for the small instrument holes in the Instrument Panel, so > I measured the hole diameter in the Ellison (model 4-5 for an O-360). > Magic - it's exactly 2 1/4", give or take the width of the lines on my > scale. I used my hole saw and voila' (not viola :-) ), a perfect fit. > > [Epplin John A] I posted the same thing a few months ago. Nat said he would look into it. I don't remember the exact size I made mine, tried to fit it best I could to both the Ellison and the engine mounting flange. I used a boring bar in the mill for the hole so could make any size. John Epplin Mk4 #467 > From: "Tonya Davis" Subject: COZY: Bendix Fuel Injection Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 20:01:45 -0600 I am in the process of routing the throttle and mixture cables on an I0360. Idle and full throttle was easy enough to determine but I'm not sure about the mixture. Can someone clear this up for me? At the moment the Bendix is mounted on a 90-degree elbow and the inlet facing forward. I seem to recall that Mike Melvill thought we could point the inlet aft to pick up high pressure that builds up in the aft end of the bottom cowl. Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance, Mike Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:07:45 -0600 From: Vance Atkinson Subject: COZY: prop seal Ken, That's too much oil loss.......... >From what I've experienced, the prop seal will move slightly aft (assuming too much crankcase pressure) with out the retainer plate that you should have on there. If you have the timing ring on there instead, it will allow the seal to leak some oil, but not the great amount of oil that will leave if the seal is completely blown out. I have both.....peace of mind. WITHOUT THIS SEAL RETAINER YOU RUN A HIGH RISK OF LOOSING A SEAL. Numerous people have dead sticked in because of this omission, Including Uli Wolters in Germany, and Nat lost one but managed to get it on the ground before all the oil left and the engine siezed. You don't mention if you have a oil/air separator. If you don't , get one. This unit must be mounted higher than the engine outlet breather fitting on the engine accessory case. From the oil separator, my breather tube goes straight back along the pilots side of the exhaust pipe and exits out the exhaust pipe area. It is heated on the exhaust so it cannot be blocked due to moisture freezing. The tube is scarfed so that oil doesn't dribble. For several years I allowed the oil that was collected in the oil/air separator to drain back into the engine ) via a hole that I drilled in the dipstick tube. I believe my camshaft went flat due to corrosion set up by the acid of the oil returning to the engine. Gus Sabo sent me a article several years ago, about how this happens. I then switched to a plastic bottle container to capture the "used" oil, rather than dump it overboard streaking the cowl. I empty the container every 3 to 4 months. To answer your question, 'does the tipping the breather tube into the slipstream cause increased chance of the prop seal to blow out.....yes. That's assuming you have the standard arrangement of the tube running straight down the firewall and exiting ot the bottom of the cowl. Some EZ guys have had experience showing, that scarfing or increasing the negative pressure on the tube (that exits straight down the firewall and exits on the bottom of the cowl), magnifies the oil problem of excessive oil consumption. Nat Puffer once calculated that our fuel vents pointed in the full forward position provided much more pressure than we needed to accomplish its task and advised the builders to use an angle less than shown in the plans. With my fuel setup of both strakes feeding a sump, I have found the fuel vents to be extremely sensitive to air stream angle for feeding the sump evenly. >From what I know about excessive oil breathing or, high crankcase pressure, is, its usually caused by excessive blowby from the rings, (broken, stuck, not seated) BUT, of course, not always. Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:29:42 -0600 From: Vance Atkinson Subject: COZY: Oil Seal Fellow carnardians, the true story from Nat's lips about his prop oil seal failing, is as follows; "The true story is that when I heard about Uli's problem, I decided to install a seal retainer. When I took off the prop etc. I found that I didn't even have a seal, and I hadn't lost any oil at all, nor was I losing any. The seal was sitting all by itself around the crankshaft, not doing a thing except grinning at me. In analyzing how this could be, it was because I had my vent pipe cut at an angle so the airstream reduced the pressure in the crankcase. If the pressure in the crankcase is less than atmospheric, any leakage will be air in, not oil out. After I discovered this, I vowed not to have anything in the vent line at all, like an oil separator, or a back pressure valve, or anything which might plug up and pressurize the crankcase, even if I did have a retainer installed. You know Mike Melvill almost burned up his engine because the back pressure valve froze up. I would always be willing to accept some oil loss in exchange for the peace of mind that I will never blow a seal and burn up my engine." I guess my memory is going.....is that the first thing or the second ? I stand corrected. Vance Atkinson From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:19:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: prop seal The retainers are Lycoming part number 73952 (2 req'd), bolts STD-1919 (1/4" x 9/16" coarse tread)(6 req'd), and 6 lockwashers. I used drilled head bolts, and safety wire them. If your crankcase doesn't have holes, they can be drilled by removing one of the prop bushings. I used crazy glue to hold in the right location, a transfer punch (full bolt diameter with a short center punch tip) to locate the holes. then Drill and tap. The sealant is specified as a Lycoming number or #20 Pliobond adhesive. I have had to replace several seals in near 700 hours, my engine runs on the hot side, and the seals seem to get hard and crack. A small oil leak results, nothing disaster, but there is an oily cowl. Uli Woelter, the designer of the Cosy Classic, made a forced landing in Europe, after his seal popped out, and big time oil leak siezed the engine. The plane was near scrap, but no injuries when he landed in a tall grass pasture. This is an easy precaution, should be mandatory. From: gperry@usit.com Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 14:44:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: COZY: Wing Root Shields Hi everyone, Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum shields that fit between the cowling and wing root? I'm going crazy cutting aluminum pieces that look awful and change shape in the middle of the night when the lights are off (I swear they do). There must be an easier way... Gregg Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:36:48 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields Gregg, re " Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum shields that fit between the cowling and wing root?" I do not like mine either...they're held in position with tabs top and bottom that have holes that align with two cowling cam locks top and bollom. At present I have eveything apart getting the engine overhauled and am putting my brain to work on something better (not different). I've found the tabs do not last long....two have broken already. What I'm thinking about is a vertical stud like device inside the root with cam locks or nut plates to hold the shields in place....also, I have my shields lined with that 3M silver fire/heat stuff....should keep high temps inside the cowling and away from the root and elevator rigging. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:57:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields On 03/26/99 14:44:57 you wrote: > >Hi everyone, > > Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum >shields that fit between the cowling and wing root? I'm going crazy cutting >aluminum pieces that look awful and change shape in the middle of the night >when the lights are off (I swear they do). There must be an easier way... > > Gregg > > > Make a posterboard template. masking tape pieces to fill, and cut some more, and do it again till it fits, then cut aluminum. Mine are aluminum, but its on my list to change them to stainless steel. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 21:07:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields I just 15 minutes ago, installed mine, after reinstalling the wings as part of the annual inspection. I have fiberglass flanges recessed in the wing inboard end recesses. The flanges are approx. 1" in to give clearance to the cowl fasteners (mine are Camlock 4002 series) and are full fore/aft length of the top and bottom. THe shields are cutout locally to clear the cowl fasteners, cable and pushrod. The flange projects about 3/4", which is sufficient to overlap the shield at cutouts. The shields are held in place with the smaller camlocks with slotted heads, 4 or 5 top and bottom. A picture is worth a 1000 words, I'm sure this is clear as mud. What I remember this detail is straight Cosy Classic. From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: Wing Root Shields Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 08:17:46 -0600 I am just finishing the first one. I used a piece of 1/2 in plywood, fitted to the opening with just a slip fit. Then trimmed it such that the thickness of the aluminum would fit between it and the fiberglass. I radiused the edge for bend radius and used the plywood as a template to cut the aluminum 5/8 over size. Made cutouts for the aileron pushrod and rudder cable. I then drilled 3/16 holes to notch into for tabs. A tab for each cowling fastener to go into and one in between each of these. Cut and filed the notches smooth. Cut another piece of wood the same shape as the curvature to lay on top, sandwiched the aluminum in between and used wood blocks and a mallet to form the tabs. Worked quite well, the piece just slips into place. Next is to rivet nut plates on the between tabs and use countersunk screws through the flange t hold it in place. At this point I am planning to use screws and nut plates for the cowling so these nut plates will be riveted to the heat shield also. I used 2024-t3 aluminum for material, .016 except for the forward half of the right one which has the oil cooler involved in it. This is another story. John Epplin, Mk4 #467 > -----Original Message----- > From: gperry@usit.com [SMTP:gperry@usit.com] > Hi everyone, > > Has anyone a better (or easier) solution to those #$%^& aluminum > > Gregg Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:11:54 -0800 From: "LCDR James D. Newman" Subject: COZY: Re: Wing Root Shields Hi John and All, > Next is to rivet nut plates on the between tabs and use countersunk screws through the > flange t hold it in place. At this point I am planning to use screws and nut plates for the > cowling so these nut plates will be riveted to the heat shield also. I used 2024-t3 aluminum for > material, .016 except for the forward half of the right one which has the oil cooler involved in > it. This is another story. We did something similar 11+ years ago except . . . Like the firewall that is stainless steel with fibra fax behind it then the wood firewall, the wing root closeouts are a "firewall". The wing roots should be thin wall stainless steel too. We made 2 sets of wing root rib templates from wood like the metal spam can guys do making their wing ribs, except they are staggered in size so that we could make 2 sizes of wing root skins per side. One skin over laps the other around the flange, and we put fibra fax between the stainless steel skins - a sandwich of stainless steel, fibra fax, then stainless steel. Then the nut plates or cam locks are mounted to the flange of the wing root fire walls. Then the cowling machine screws with stainless steel tinnerman washers pass through the cowling, pass through the wing skins, pass through the sandwich wing root closeout, then into the nut plates. Also, don't cut the sandwich flanges to make tabs - they will eventually crack off. Leave it as a continuous flange like the spam can wing ribs. Passages for the rudder and aileron are made into the wing root fire wall, with fire proof boots around them. Finally, since I hate any kind of screw or antenna on the outside of my plane, I have no screws or antenna on the outside of the Infinity 1 airframe *anywhere*. The cowling is the last hurdle. It will have no screws to hold it down either, and will be able to pop up easily like a hatch back or car hood for easy easy maintenance. The bottom cowling will just swing down. HTH. Infinity's Forever, JD Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:13:41 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields >Make a posterboard template. masking tape pieces to fill, and cut some >more, and do it again till it fits, then cut aluminum. >Mine are aluminum, but its on my list to change them to stainless steel. This is on my to-do list, also, with one addition: They will also be painted with the ablative paint, as will just about everything else behind the firewall that I would prefer not to burn through. --Howard Rogers From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 09:52:39 EST Subject: COZY: Re-Fire-Wall test Being curious about a material previously called Ocean 77 and presently called 477 Epoxy (call 1-800-877-3473 for technical information) and its possible use as a sole firewall material.I purchased a gallon from Hi Grade paint company in Chicago (773-463-3050) Mike Boden (twin engine Long EZ designer) and I conducted several test of firewall material which have been recommended in the past for the Long EZ and Cozy along with the 477 to see which combination of firewall protective material is the most effective in preventing a propane torch from burning through the material tested. All the material used were obtained from Wix Aircraft (except for the 477 Epoxy) and are the "normal" material used for firewall protection in our planes. I fully realize these test were not very scientific but it gave us a good indication of the most effective and lightest firewall system l plan to use for my Stagger EZ. All the test were conducted with a 6"X 6" firewall mounted on a long stick. The plywood use was given 2 plys of BID with safety poxy. The 477 epoxy was applied as the manufacturer recommended (2 coats) with a spray gun except for test 5 where I rolled it on. The carbon use was the 282 BID cloth 5.7 oz/sq.yd. Firewall Test 1....Plywood -fiberfrax -aluminum After 30 seconds the aluminum melted and after one minute the plywood began to smoke on the aft side. Firewall Test 2.....Plywood -fiberfrax -stainless steel This combination lasted for 5 minuets before aft side of the plywood became hot to the touch (seconds to pain). This is the current recommended firewall system and performed as good as any we tested. Firewall test 3....2plys glass-1/4" 20 LB.clark foam-2plys glass-477 We were amazed that this performed almost as good as the stainless. After 4 minuets we gave up as the aft side of the composite firewall became hot. The torch melted the BID surface and began to burn through after 4 minuets Firewall test 4......Same as test 3 but with one ply of carbon over the 477. This combination was an improvement over test 3 as the carbon behaved similar to the stainless preventing burn-thru to the glass surface. Firewall test 5......2 plys glass- 1/4" plywood- 2plys glass - one ply of carbon-477 This combination lasted as long as test 2 and the aft side of the plywood felt cooler than test 2 after 5 minuets. The carbon BID prevented burn through. I rolled the 477 on and applied 3 thick coats. Results/comments/opinion.........The presently recommend firewall system while heavy works well. I plan to use the combination of materials in test 5 on my Stagger EZ as it is light (half the weight of stainless) and performs as well as stainless. The least effective firewall system was test 1. If anyone is flying with the firewall system used in test 1, I would strongly recommend you change to the recommended system. When heated, the 477 will expand and swell up to a thickness of 1 1/2" to 2". This material acted as both an insulator and as an extinguisher as during one test the 477 extinguished the flame. As the 477 expands it is soft and pliable and would not interfere with control systems and may even act to protect them from heat. The concern we had about this product is as it expands it can be blown off the surface with an air gun and this may degrade its effectiveness as a firebarrier. I plan to build a small box that will represent the inside of an engine cowl and blow high velocity air in it as the firewall system is heated. This will give me a far better idea of the performance of 477 in a real-life situation. Steve Wright Wright Aircraft Works LLC Stagger EZ N700EZ Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 08:14:38 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Wing Root Shields > > Is "ablative" paint the "Ocean" stuff that I've heard others talk about? > > Gregg >> Gregg, Yes, it is. You have to see this stuff in action, to fully appreciate how incredibly well it works. It builds a thick, insulating char, when exposed to flame, a bit like those "snakes" you used to get at the fireworks stand, as a kid. Howard Rogers Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 10:02:31 -0800 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: Re: COZY: Re-Fire-Wall test >In a message dated 3/31/99 10:21:48 AM Central Standard Time, >hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU writes: > ><< Excellent information! Are you saying that the Ocean equivilent is > no longer available through Wicks or ACS? >> >Correct.........The ocean folks will not sell it to them >Steve What a revoltin' development this is! I find this incredibly ironic. I am assuming that this has something to do with percieved liability risk, on the manufacturer's part, as it pertains to aircraft. The irony is that this stuff was specifically developed for aircraft use. I met the man (sorry, I don't remember his name) at an EAA chapter meeting many years ago, who developed this product. He fought in WWII as a bomber crewmember. His plane caught some flak through one wing and was engulfed in flame so quickly that the crew barely got out in time. It made an impression so strong that it became his life's work to develop things related to aircraft fire safety. At the time he gave us his presentation, he was the head of a lab at NASA Ames Research Center, in his capacity as a polymer chemist. He had developed a plastic canopy material that built a char when flamed, and carried that work over to the ablative paint. He also developed a laminating resin that was flameproof (my word, not his). I say flameproof, because he brought a slab of carbon fiber laminate and passed it around for inspection*. There was nothing about it that indicated that it had spent 15 minutes in an infinite pool fire. It was pristine. He showed films of a new dry chemical he had developed for engine fire extinguishing bottles that not only put out the fuel-fed fire in a jet engine nacelle, but TOTALLY eliminated re-ignition, in spite of the continued prescense of gushing fuel, and hot surfaces. All this wonderful stuff was freely distributed to industry, in the interest of everyone's safety. A shining example of how our government money SHOULD be spent, IMHO. Shame on this company for refusing to sell this product to anyone, regardless of their intended use. In my opinion, this is unforgivable, and the solution is obvious: disclaimers, more insurance, and a higher price. So What? I'm getting down off my soap box, now. --Howard Rogers *At the time, the Boeing 767 was not quite released, and thanks to this man's efforts and contributions in working with Boeing, this or similar laminates were being used for the first time in this particular aircraft's interior panels, overhead storage bins, etc. Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 00:40:58 -0400 From: John Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Stand Steve, Do you have a chain fall and a place to hang it from? That's how I'm doing it. My engine has been hanging from my garage ceiling for the past few years. No messing with engine stands. It keeps the engine off the ground and away from moisture, bugs, and little fingers. Also, having the chain fall gives the advantage of installing the engine on the firewall in less than ten minutes. I just lower the engine, back the plane to it and slide in the bolts. I hope I helped. Johnny V N69CZ STEVE HALL wrote: > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand > to store an IO-360!! > And has anyone used the "Engine Overhaul Stand" > that is sold thru "AS" > I need a Solution ASAP!! > > Thanks, > > Steve Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 16:08:28 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Engine Stand Steve, I built a stand our of 2x4's, installed 1" wheels, and bolted the Brock engine mount to it with the engine attached to the mount. It was easy to move around and work on. dd Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1999 22:11:19 -0400 From: "Marc J. Zeitlin" Subject: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand STEVE HALL wrote: > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand > to store an IO-360!! Having just installed my engine (O-360-A2A) for the first time, I built the engine stand called out in the COZY MKIV plans exactly. I put four casters on it, and it works like a charm. I built it from scrap plywood and 2x4's I had laying around. Maybe it cost $20 for the wood and casters, and I built the thing in less than two hours with a circular saw and a electric screwdriver for the drywall screws. I can wheel the engine around, and the bottom is great for storing all the engine related stuff. It's barely bigger than the engine in area. I can put it anywhere in the garage. While I thought about hanging the engine like John Vermeylen (John, sign your messages so we have a clue who wrote them :-) ), I was just too nervous about hanging $15K over a concrete floor :-). I was nervous enough for the one minute I had it three feet off the floor under the hoist while I slid the stand under it. -- Marc J. Zeitlin mailto:marcz@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 08:11:02 -0500 From: Michael Link Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand "Marc J. Zeitlin" wrote: > STEVE HALL wrote: > > > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand > > to store an IO-360!! > > Having just installed my engine (O-360-A2A) for the first time, I built the > engine stand called out in the COZY MKIV plans exactly. I too built the plans engine stand, and it worked great---for storage. Unfortunately, once you begin putting accessories and baffling on the engine, the stand no longer works for the many times the engine must be mounted and then taken off the plane. The best solution is either an overhead or roll-around hoist. My neighbor loaned me his, but I later saw an ad in the paper for new hoists at $149.95. That is quite a lot to spend, but I would do so for the convenience that it provided me. Regards, Michael Link Cozy MK-IV N-171-ML Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:01:26 +0200 From: Jean-Jacques CLAUS Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: COZY: Engine Stand Marc J. Zeitlin a écrit: > STEVE HALL wrote: > > > Does anyone have or know of a compact engine stand > > to store an IO-360!! > Put some steel round tubing on the floor ( remember ancient pyramid builders ) . Cover with a plate ( made of wood in my case ) and put some big scraps of styrofoam on the plate. So you can put down the engine on the foam. It'll find its place naturally. In my single car garage, this stand takes only 3 cubic feet and can go under my worktable wheeling on the round tubing. Jean-Jacques CLAUS Cosy F-PJJC ( reserved ) France From: Epplin John A Subject: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:58:38 -0500 I opted to use the ball screw actuator for the speed brake. This leaves a problem when you get to the engine control installation. There is no place to anchor the cable housings. I made a bracket of 2024-T3 with plate nuts and bonded it to the heat duct just if front of the seat belt hard point. I layed up 3 UNI plus one BID to hold it in place. The bracket is a hat section, lay-ups over each leg. It would have been easier to do this at the time the heat tunnel was fabricated, it could have been a flat plate bonded under the top skin of the tunnel with appropriate reinforcement. If you are not using the plans speed brake actuator, might think about this before I did. John Epplin Mk4 #467 N100EP From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:48:48 -0500 Dana, Sorry about the delay. I am at work and do not have the plans book with me, take a look in the engine installation section on the page where the throttle control is detailed. The bracket that holds the cable housing is detailed here. It is to be installed on a bracket that is part of the speed brake linkage. If I were doing this over again, I would make a couple of aluminum plates just short of 2 in long and about .75 wide out of .032 2024-T3. Put 2 10-32 plate nuts in each near the ends, leave plenty of edge distance for the screws. Then inlet these into the top foam, one about 1.5 inch forward of the seat belt anchor and the other forward of that a couple of inches. Fill the plate nuts with RTV and glass over these with the scheduled lay-up, forgot, but think it was 2 layers bid. Add a reinforcing layer or two over the plates, extending about a half inch in front and rear of each plate and lapping down the sides of the tunnel. If you find you don't need one or both, it is no big deal. The ones you need can be carefully drilled into the RTV and the RTV picked out easy enough. I would drill through the nut and into the heat duct with a drill that is small enough not to destroy the locking feature of the nut, the screw or bolt you use will push its way through the inside glass. I made a 3 lever control assembly, throttle, mixture and alternate air. The good part is it looks and works just great, bad part is it took an awful lot of time. If your interested I could take a couple of pictures and forward them to you. John Epplin. Mk4 #467 N100EP > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Hill [SMTP:dhill36@juno.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 1999 3:32 PM > To: Epplin John A > Subject: Re: COZY: chap 6 & 23, engine controls > > Hi John, > Re the above, I am just now constructing the heat duct and at > this point very unknowledgable about the controls installation. Even > with my looking at the plans, it is unclear to me just where to locate a > 1/4" piece of aluminum as you generally suggested. If you have time could > you come up with a rough stationing and width for this aluminum support > plate? Thanks for any help. > __________________ _ > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:34:51 -0400 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Al Wick writes: I'm going to try using engine vacuum augmented with a few electric vacuum pumps normally used to control your automobile cruise control. End< I'm using the EG33 Subaru engine (still unproven) and have configured a nozzle within the exhaust collector where three pipes come into one. This nozzle is supposed to cause significant vacuums, according to the auto racing boys, and achieves its best performance is at high power levels unlike the induction manifold method. The system is similar to the venturies found on the antique aircraft except that the airspeed is achieved using exhaust gasses rather than prop wash and physical motion through the air. Using this configuration it is important to incorporate an anti-backfire valve to ensure that no positive pressure pulses are sent back down the vacuum system in adverse conditions. We'll see how it works once the system is complete. Phillip Johnson Cozy MK IV RG S/N 30 Subaru SVX powered Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:16:22 -0700 From: hrogers@slac.stanford.edu (Howard Rogers) Subject: COZY: Re: alternate vacuum sources >Phillip Johnson wrote: >I'm using the EG33 Subaru engine (still unproven) and have configured a >nozzle within the exhaust collector where three pipes come into one. >This nozzle is supposed to cause significant vacuums, according to the >auto racing boys, and achieves its best performance is at high power >levels unlike the induction manifold method. This sounds good, on the face of it, because the manifold vacuum is just about worthless in a climb. On the other hand, as you are making your approach, and descending, the above described system would be at the same kind of disadvantage. I wonder about a system to automatically regulate between the two? > Using this configuration it is important to incorporate >an anti-backfire valve to ensure that no positive pressure pulses are >sent back down the vacuum system in adverse conditions. There is a positive crankcase ventilation kit sold for canards (sorry, I can't remember who markets it) that uses a system like this, including the anti-backfire valve. A friend installed it on his O-235 powered Long EZ, and loved it. "Sales Points": it eliminates the annoying little oil seepages that always creep in. It prevents the blowout of a nose seal (though I have never seen this happen, unless the crankcase breather becomes kinked). Stops the oil mess on the prop. BUT..... I seem to remember reading, somewhere on this newsgroup, that someone had a problem with this type of system, and it related to the anti backfire valve. Does anyone remember that? Details? --Howard Rogers From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 11:14:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Air Flow Performance For work on Bendix injectors, I use D& G Supply in Niles Michigan. phone 1-800-684-4440, http://www.dgsupply.com, E-mail: Russ@dgsupply.com. They are FAA certified repair station and have several times treated me with excellent service and very reasonable prices. I have the highest regards for Airflow Performance, but try to keep all certified equipment as certified with a paper trail for legal reasons. Remember on an EZ, the injector tubes and distribution block need to be mounted on the cool side of the air. I have a set of IO-320 Lycoming injector tubes for sale. WHen I did the major overhaul, I thought it would be best to got to the original installation, which was a mistake, after 6 hours of flying I switched back to my original installation with the distribution block mounted on the prop governor pad. Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 23:56:57 -0600 From: James Russell Subject: COZY: Emergency vacuum >Am planning an all electric panel, had bad experiences with cheap vacuum >pumps and lost a friend do to a situation that started with a vac pump >failure in IMC. Will have redundant system, 2 batteries, 2 alternators and >monitoring systems. My goal is to have a comfortable IFR airplane.... Hi John: Have you looked at a venturi? I have decided to have a vacuum pump w/ a emergency venturi as back-up. I have looked at the electric motor-powered vacuum pump as back-up ( too heavy and expensive ) and the manifold vacuum- powered back-up vacuum system ( not enough vacuum at full throttle ). You can get venturis big enough to run 3 instruments and they are light and cheap ( especially used! ) The drag when deployed is the only negative I can think of ( others? ). I haven't looked at where to mount it yet....The venturi will be mounted on a spring-loaded door. Pull a handle, the door opens, a check valve seals off the failed vacuum pump. The engineering for the airloads on the door, etc. and the location I haven't done yet. I also want a safe, reliable IFR platform - 2 independent GPS/coms w/ a handheld back-up, radio altimeter, and a Strikefinder, etc... I got this idea from a Challenger I was working on... they have Ram Air Turbines for emergency power (also Boeing 737s...) Regards, James PS: It takes from 2-7 hours on the ramp to align both flux gates in a G-II/III/IV after setting them up on the bench.... I looked at a remote mag compass also but the weight/cost/complexity killed it for me. ============================================================ Q: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb? A: None, Bill Gates will just redefine Darkness00 as the new industry standard. ============================================================ From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 08:42:31 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Emergency vacuum Was said: vac pump failure in IMC -- Training, training, training until reflexes make the situation manageable. My IFR practice safety pilot and I have literally no holds bared. Pull the breaker on the ADF on a NDB approach, crank the trim control on his Mooney while on an ILS, cover instruments, several at a time including T&B, horizon and attitude gyro all at the same time. My goal is to have a comfortable IFR airplane.... No airplane is comfortable IFR! Even John Travolta's Gulfstream had a complete electrical failure at altitude on top approaching New York. Single Engine, Single pilot IFR is TOUGH. Its the hardest video game, no pause control, must play all cards delt to you, and its as you have said FOR KEEPS!!! Flying an EZ IFR is a whole lot more difficult than a C-150 or 172 just due to the speed. I have had going into BOston on arrival: 4 altitude changes (retrim and stabilize) from 11,000', 3 different contollers (interupt train of thought, tune radios), and ready to copy, changed to an intersection, a Vor, an intersection, and the ILS with 600 broken moderate rain, with none of the legs more than 5 minutes in length. Taught me to back off on my arrival minimums. The drag when deployed is the only negative With no spinner costing 5 knots, and wheel pants 10 or 15 K, I'm sure its a lot more than you would believe. > >spring-loaded door. Pull a handle, the door opens, a check valve seals off >the failed vacuum More things to go wrong, new territory. 2 independent GPS/coms Relying on GPS is not backup, its more of the same. THe Government has been jamming GPS for 300 mile radius's at locations all over the country from BOston to New Mexico and St. Louis. Last weekend on a nice hour flight for dinner to Muncie, In. (the restaurant was closed, ended having ribs at Bolton Airport, Columbus, Ohio), my GPS internal battery went dead. The terrain is flat farm land without many significant landmarks. It was no big thing, at 1000' above the surface enjoying the scenery, used VOR, and ADF to confirm position. Most of the GPS approaches are much harder than the others, yes you know better ?? where you are, but when do you hit the hold button? Thats the question (and I don't need an answer) when being vectored, it can be confusing. In general GPS's receivers are reliable, use a panel mount so the power is coming from a good source, and not little batteries that could go dead at the wrong time, thats OK for your backup. For IFR I recommend 2 Navcom (King KX-155) one with ILS, Marker beacon and ADF (for ILS), GPS, then if you can afford it make the GPS approach enroute certified, and a handheld as backup, mine is a King Kx-99, but one with a GPS would be nice. This will be about as full of a panel that a Cozy can fit. Strikefinder, etc... More weight, pretty soon no weight for fuel Challenger ,Boeing 737s Yea, and 2 pilots, lots of training and actual experience > remote mag compass also but the >weight/cost/complexity killed >it for me. Agreed > The bottom line the COzy is a fine airplane with limits, it can't flown like a C-172 or 747, everone must set their own limits which are conservative with respect to the FAR's, its usually not one item that makes a "no go", but a combination of items, I could talk on that, but its more a line of thinking than a set of hard number things. Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:43:16 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling snip The way I did my baffling is to wrap the tops of the cylinders up to the top of the push tubes. This forces all the air out between the push tubes causing as much air as possible onto the fins between the push tubes. The reason I did this is the fin area between the push tubes is the hottest part of the cylinder. Paul Krasa Long EZ 214LP Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:55:59 -0500 From: Curt Smith Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling I did my 0235 last summer and wrapped the BID/RTV up around the inside of the pushrod tubes on top (and on around the tubes) and left 2-3" on the bottom. Seems to be working fine. Curt Smith N86CS At 06:59 AM 5/12/99 -0400, Jim Sower wrote: >Hey all, >I was interested in the considerable thread on baffling a while >back. More recently, during annual, I discovered that my >Long-EZ which I purchased last year had two bad cylinders, most >likely caused by a pretty awful job of baffling by the builder. >I am in the process of re-baffling. I have the 'fences' pretty >nearly done and have elected to use the 'fiberglass-RTV' method >of doing the jugs and heads. I have an O-235 (to be upgraded >next winter to O-320) and I need to find some consensus >regarding the 'gaps' in the barrel and head 'C-wraps'. > >I have figured that the heads should be covered on the >'vertical' portion of the fins, and just a little (around the >'corner') toward the 'top' and 'bottom' portions. I mainly need >some opinions on the entrance and exit gaps on the barrels. >I've been told anywhere from 2" to 3" on the bottom to 3" to 2" >on the top. I need your thoughts for the O-235 and also for the >O-320 so I don't have to pester y'all again next fall. > >Thanks in advance, >Jim Sower > > From: "james leturgey" Subject: Re: COZY: Baffling Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:23:37 PDT Jim; I am using the bid wrap on my 0235 longeze from day one, and I used a reference I read from Gary Hunter of 2.5" opening on the bottom of the barrel and 1.5" on the top. I may have read this is one of the older Canard Pushers. Every system seems to be different and this may not work for you so experiment. Jim (longeze 537JL) >From: Jim Sower >Reply-To: Jim Sower >To: Canard Aviators , Cozy Builders > >Subject: COZY: Baffling >Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:59:54 -0400 > >Hey all, >I was interested in the considerable thread on baffling a while >back. More recently, during annual, I discovered that my >Long-EZ which I purchased last year had two bad cylinders, most >likely caused by a pretty awful job of baffling by the builder. >I am in the process of re-baffling. I have the 'fences' pretty >nearly done and have elected to use the 'fiberglass-RTV' method >of doing the jugs and heads. I have an O-235 (to be upgraded >next winter to O-320) and I need to find some consensus >regarding the 'gaps' in the barrel and head 'C-wraps'. > >I have figured that the heads should be covered on the >'vertical' portion of the fins, and just a little (around the >'corner') toward the 'top' and 'bottom' portions. I mainly need >some opinions on the entrance and exit gaps on the barrels. >I've been told anywhere from 2" to 3" on the bottom to 3" to 2" >on the top. I need your thoughts for the O-235 and also for the >O-320 so I don't have to pester y'all again next fall. > >Thanks in advance, >Jim Sower > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 10:25:40 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations ><< We put a GEM-602 (4-cylinder engine monitor) on our Traveler several weeks > ago and have been watching it ever since to get an idea of 'how things are'. > I don't understand something we are seeing and before we start switching > probes around I thought I would see if someone else with more experience > with these sorts of things can lend me a clue. > > On climb out, the CHTs for all 4 cylinders is 'fairly' flat, but the EGTs > are all over the chart. The EGTs for cylinders 3 and 4 seem to be close to > the anticipated levels, but the EGTs for cylinders 1 and 2 are much lower. > Once at cruise settings, the EGTs for 3 and 4 remain at expected levels and > the EGTs for 1 and 2 rise to expected levels. A friend of mine retired from GM after 'bout a bizzilion years as an engine guru and went to work for McClarin (sp?) to help with development of specialized engines including very high performance engines for racing. I recall some conversations we had about 10 years ago when he was running his Lyc O-235 in a test cell in anticipation of putting the engine in his Long-Ez fitted with a special carburetor. I can share some things I learned from our discussions. Two considerations high on the list of priorities for induction system design are FLOW and MIXURE. The two qualities are interdependent to a degree that causes a lot of brick throwing between guys trying to whip carburetor problems and those designing the plumbing that hooks everything up. CHTs are an indication of a balance between cooling air over the cylinders and the heat energy thrown off by the fires and friction within the cylinder . . . and may have very little significance with respect to how well that cylinder is puttine energy into the propeller. For example, if one cylinder is putting out half the horsepower it was designed for, it may still show the same temperature as the others if it suffers from restricted air flow for cooling. EGTs are a stronger indicator for energy produced by the cylinder but I undestand that the temperature can be influenced both by flow (amount of fuel/air consumed each stroke and restrictions in the ability of the exhaust system to move the spent gasses out) and mixture (the most efficient use of fuel is indicated by adjusting mixture for maximum EGT reading meaning that their is neither an excess of fuel or oxygen). Mixture is the most powerful infuluence of the two. The ability of carbutetors to discharge a completly homogenous concoction of fuel vapors and air is a dicy proposition. By- in-large, carburetor designs on most certfied airplanes have not been modified in things that affect performance since they were liberated from the farm over 50 years ago. Updraft carburetors for deep breathing engines were fairly common on tractors back then . . . while cars were moving rapidly away from the design. Given aviation's reverence for things traditional, it's not hard to understand why cars run so much better than our airplanes. If one observes a large difference in EGT readings on an aircraft engine, there's a relatively easy way to scope out the cause. In straight and level flight, adjust the mixture over a range as needed to observe the peak in each cylinder. Do this one cylinder at a time returning to a "too rich" setting for a minute or so between each reading. It's not sufficient to do this test at a very low power setting where continuous operation at peak EGT is allowed. The ability of a carburetor to maintain the same mixture characteristics over the full range of throttle travel is generally poor. The differences you cited for various power settings is an example of this phenomenon. If this test shows that you can achieve the SAME peak reading on every cylinder, then you know that the unballance is due to mixture variations on a cyclinder by cylinder basis. If all cylinders peak at the same time but show different tempratures, then there is a difference in flow of gasses on a cylinder by cylinder basis -or- there is a variation in the calibration the probes and indicating system on a cylinder-by-cylinder basis. Institutionalized aviation has managed to push this design flaw under the rug for decades by installing a single EGT probe in the exhaust gas stream of the cylinder that peaks first as the mixture is leaned. After enriching to the value recommended for cruising flight one could be assured that all other cylinders are operating at or below the same temperature on the rich side of peak. It was not apparent when one or more cylinders operated a hundred degrees cooler than the hottest . . . not until you folks started installing fancy instrumentation. See what progress has done for us? After decades of operation in the fat, dumb and happy mode, we now have something new to worry about, as if good pilotage wasn't enough to occupy our minds while airborne. My suspicions are that wide variations in EGT readings are pretty common in carbureted engines. Injected engines can be fine tuned by adjusting the ports for each cylinder but you guys with tractor carbs are pretty well stuck with what you've got. By the way, my friend was considering installation of a more modern carburetor design on his Long-Ez and was so disappoined in the test-cell results that he bolted the tractor carb back onto the engine. His experience suggests to me that carburetors should have been eliminated from aircraft engines a LONG time ago. But then, we're not nearly the influencial consumer group as car buyers. Regulation has so discouraged competition and new development; we must resign ourselves to living with the unhappy information acquired by sticking that new-fangled gage on your antique airplane! Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 21:12:23 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations Bob, re "See what progress has done for us? After decades of operation in the fat, dumb and happy mode, we now have something new to worry about, as if good pilotage wasn't enough to occupy our minds while airborne." I've been breaking in a newly overhauled Lycoming 0-360 with Millennium cylinders and the EGT's are consistent - during climb #1 is about 180° hotter than 2-3-4, but in cruise they're all about the same. And guess what? I've about decided to ignore it. These engines are like the old Farmall Super M, they get the job done and what does it matter if the EGT's are all over the board. It's been like that since day one (some 50 years ago) and many of these motors routinely run far beyond TBO. Mine was 18 years old when tore down, and still in very good condition including a crank in "new" limits. I spent a lot of money for the device that reads, records, and tells me everything going on back there and sometimes wonder if it is at all necessary. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 23:26:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Re: CHT/EGT variations Get to know your EGT's, they will point a cylinder going sour quicker than anything else! Electronics International puts out an excellent troubleshooting manual that comes with their ultimate scanner. They suggest getting many readings with a good running engine (hate to say it, but I haven't done it) then when there is a problem, its easy to go back to the baseline. But it has helped me find a clogged injector nozzle that took 10 minutes time once the top cowl was removed to correct at a strange airport, fouled sparkplugs, where I pulled only one plug to correct the problem happened several times, and a badly mistimed mag after they both were off, and one slipped a tooth on installation. I wouldn't be without EGT and CHT on all cylinders. For leaning, I use 1450 degrees as maximum EGT and lean just short of that near maximum power for a manifold or RPM maximum limit. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 21:22:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts] On 06/06/99 07:58:20 you wrote: > >> >> Bill Freeman wrote: >> > >> The teflon hose has an unlimited SHELF LIFE, >> > **not** service life and should be replaced every decade or >> > sooner, just exactly like H-8794. Also, this hose is known to have >> > caused fuel system fires if the teflon gets too hot and starts to flow >> > and break down. If you doubt the above, go to Parker's web site >> > and verify it. > >OK, I did. The H-8794 has a temp. range of -65 to 250 degrees F. The 124 >teflon goes up to 500 degrees. Am I missing something here? > >-ew > > > I am at 5.5 years in the process of changing all my hoses (from teflon to teflon). I have had the 2 going to the oil cooler installed a week, and expect to finish by next annual in April. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Fuel hose leaks Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 20:15:36 -0500 Builders, I got rid of my synthetic rubber fuel lines when mine started to leak profusely, and switched to teflon, same as RAF. I always turn my fuel pump on, hit the primer button, and then (with the fuel pump on) go back and pull the prop through 3 blades. This is something we were required to do in the Navy with radial engines, to make sure oil hadn't collected in the bottom cylinders. On one occasion, when I went back to pull the prop through with the fuel pump on, fuel was gushing out of the NACA scoop. I pulled the bottom cowling and my 303 Aeroquip fuel lines were leaking like sieves! I don't think they were 2 years old. I took them back to Varga, at Chandler. They said no one else with this same shipment had complained. I found out later, I was the first of many that had the same experience. If I hadn't gone to the back of the plane with the fuel pump running, but started the engine instead, I am sure I would have had an engine fire as soon as the exhaust pipes got hot. That is why I switched to Teflon! Not all synthetic fuel lines are bad, but do you want to take a chance? Nat From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 21:16:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts] Was said: With just 6 psi pressure the entire hose was wet from fuel pump to carb. It leaked dangerously and could not be detected with the engine shut down. The annual inspection wouldn't be complete without pressurizing the fuel system with the electric pump, and check for leaks. 100LL fuel leaves a good telltale stain, just don't look for wet, the fuel evaporates easily but the stain remains. Its not unusual for one of the fuel quick drains to seep when a small particle of fiberglass debris gets at the O-ring. It leaves a telltale stain on the quickdrain (blue instead of shiny brass) and possibly a circle on the floor. Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 22:50:23 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: [Fwd: Fuel System Do's/Don'ts] re "David; It took you FOUR years¿ to look under the cowling????" No Henry, it did not take 4 years to look under the cowling. It took 4 years for the hose to begin leaking and be noticed. dd From: "Chris Byrne" Subject: COZY: Cowling Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 10:21:59 +1000 Hello Not sure if you can help me here but I'll ask anyhow. I am about to order the landing gear, foam for the wings and canopy and have ASS combine all these high volume pieces it into one shipment to save on the freight. Am also thinking of the cowling as well but not sure which engine I will be using. Will be either be an IO-360, or depending on my building time, one of the diesels from LYC or Continental (should be well and truley avail by the time I require it.) Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they fit in the IO-360 cowl? Thanks Chris Byrne Sydney From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 20:27:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Cowling On 06/09/99 10:21:59 you wrote: >Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they >fit in the IO-360 cowl? All have heard, they are being designed as replacements, which means not a larger envelope. But I'm sure there will be some issues, atleast minor. I just got finished installing a new oil cooler that was supposed to be the "SAME AS". Turned out that many little problems, turned in to almost a week of spare time instead of a couple of hours. As soon as I get a little time, I'll describe what happened. Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 09:19:14 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Oil Cooler Location.. For those interested in an upper cowling oil cooler exit position, the 13 vane oil cooler from Wicks fits above the B & C 90° spin on oil filter. Don't use the plan flange, but mount the cooler flat up to the cowling top with a 2" anle attach at the firewill with a small brace to the aft lower cooler flange. There's still about a 2" clearance to remove the filter. dd From: "Morten Brandtzaeg" Subject: Re: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 22:54:38 +0200 Thanks a lot for good advice Jack! I will change the pipes to four, it seems as a good value for money solution. I will buy it from the authorized supplier and spend the winter to modify it. Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, Cozy III LN-USA Tel: +47 6126 1050 Fax: +47 6126 4392 Mob: +47 9011 7526 -----Original Message----- From: Wilhelmson, Jack To: 'Morten Brandtzaeg' ; cozy_builders@canard.com Date: 10. juni 1999 16:20 Subject: RE: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance >Morten: > >I have a 0320 and changed from two to four. It added 100 rpm at cruise full >throttle. >Which is a large power increase. Power goes up as the square of RPM. >This works because the exhaust pressure standing wave in the pipe at full >throttle >is exactly in sync with the exhaust valve opening timing. > >You can gain this by adding a SS divider to your existing single pipe >system. Make sure it is securely >welded in. If it comes loose it will hit the prop. > >Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Morten Brandtzaeg [SMTP:morten@scandisoft.no] >> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 3:31 AM >> To: cozy_builders@canard.com >> Subject: COZY: 4 pipes - how much better performance >> >> My Cozy III has O-235 and old bendix mags. I operate the plane mostly out >> of >> 800m RWY's and need to improve takeoff performance. >> Anyone who has experience from changing exhaust pipes from two to four and >> what one should expect in performance gain.. >> >> Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, LN-USA >> Tel: +47 6126 1050 Fax: +47 6126 4392 Mob: +47 9011 7526 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:04:59 -0700 From: marcna Subject: COZY: Alternate to the B&C alternators Has anyone found a alternate to the B&C alternator that will fit in the Cozy cowl. Van's Aircraft catalog list a Generic bracket kit with a list of alternators that fit the 320 and 360 engines. Has anyone had any luck with a alternative. I installed the Sky-Tek lightweight starter and it looks like it should work out just fine. Marc Parmelee -- ___ _ _____ / __\___ _____ _ /\/\ __ _ _ __| | __ \_ \/\ /\ / / / _ \_ / | | | / \ / _` | '__| |/ / / /\/\ \ / / / /__| (_) / /| |_| | / /\/\ \ (_| | | | < /\/ /_ \ V / \____/\___/___|\__, | \/ \/\__,_|_| |_|\_\ \____/ \_/ |___/ _ _ ____ ____ ___ _____ | || ||___ \| ___| / __\/ _ / | || |_ __) |___ \ / / \// / |__ _/ __/ ___) / /___ / //\ |_||_____|____/\____/ /____/ Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:41:47 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Alternate to the B&C alternators I am using an IO-360 which is a little larger and longer than the O-360 and the Featherlite cowls. I don't think you will find any trouble using any of the lightweight car alternators fitting in your cowls. Getting the brackets to work can be a different matter. I used a light weight Hitachi 40 amp alternator, I don't have the model number handy, but it weighed only a pound or two more than the B&C and cost about $50 for a rebuilt. Of course, B&C does a pretty good job overhauling them, but I decided to spend the money elsewhere. Van's bracket would be a good way to go. I ended up fiddling a bunch with the ones that came with my Lycoming and they ended up working. Eric Westland marcna wrote: > Has anyone found a alternate to the B&C alternator that will fit in > the Cozy cowl. Van's Aircraft catalog list a Generic bracket kit with > a list of alternators that fit the 320 and 360 engines. Has anyone > had any luck with a alternative. > > I installed the Sky-Tek lightweight starter and it looks like it > should work out just fine. > > Marc Parmelee > > -- > > ___ _ _____ > / __\___ _____ _ /\/\ __ _ _ __| | __ \_ \/\ /\ > / / / _ \_ / | | | / \ / _` | '__| |/ / / /\/\ \ / / > / /__| (_) / /| |_| | / /\/\ \ (_| | | | < /\/ /_ \ V / > \____/\___/___|\__, | \/ \/\__,_|_| |_|\_\ \____/ \_/ > |___/ > _ _ ____ ____ ___ _____ > | || ||___ \| ___| / __\/ _ / > | || |_ __) |___ \ / / \// / > |__ _/ __/ ___) / /___ / //\ > |_||_____|____/\____/ /____/ From: "Chris Byrne" Subject: COZY: Engine Cowling Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 23:52:18 +1000 Builders At Marc's suggestion I have included the replies that were sent direct to me so that they can be included in the archives. Question ........ Am also thinking of the cowling as well but not sure which engine I will be using. Will be either be an IO-360, or depending on my building time, one of the diesels from LYC or Continental (should be well and truly avail by the time I require it.) Do any of you have any idea of the size of these new engines and will they fit in the IO-360 cowl?.............. *From Wayne Blackler I encountered a similar problem with my Long EZ when I chose to install a parallel valve IO-360. This was solved with the use of Berkut cowls... Now for your fix... I would suggest that the only real problems with fitting the new diesel engines is the overall width (cowl easily modified), and height above the cylinders (unknown but again easily modified). I would suggest that you probably would be best to borrow an IO-360 off somebody (preferably a core), install it, install the cowls then fit the engine of choice later - this is provided the new diesels have the same mount geometry and you can use the standard mount. If you are fitting the IO-360 angle valve engine I would consider doing what Bruce Elkind has done. He has used Aerocanard canopy and cowl products and an IO-360. He has extended the nose slightly also and I personally think it is the nicest looking Mk.IV around. The cowl looks to be capable of handling any of the engines you have commented on in your mail. This is certainly the direction I would go if I were building a Mk.IV. I can supply Bruce's email address. It was in a Sport Aviation - what our members are building section within the last year or so and also in Kitplanes. Let me know. *From Nat You are much better off to start with a cowling, than no cowling at all. When I installed the Franklin, I started with a Lycoming cowling and made modifications progressively until it worked. I didn't say until it fit because it fitted in the beginning. I just had to find out where the air needed more room to exit. *From Carl Denk All have heard, they are being designed as replacements, which means not a larger envelope. But I'm sure there will be some issues, at least minor. I just got finished installing a new oil cooler that was supposed to be the "SAME AS". Turned out that many little problems, turned in to almost a week of spare time instead of a couple of hours. As soon as I get a little time, I'll describe what happened. What I have done. As Nat in the last newsletter recommends the Aerocad cowl for the IO 360 and Wayne says it looks like a good way to go, I contacted Jeff. He was good enough to mention that he was about to ship an order off to Australia and it might be a good idea to share the freight. So I have a cowl on the way. Chris Byrne Sydney From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:38:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling THe gaps between the cylinder wrap baffles should be not less than 3/4", wider on top. There must be NO openings around the baffling, except where you want air to move, and cool something. Use a light, mirrors, or whatever to verify that the flexible baffle material is lying in the right direction, and tightly against the cowl or whatever. What is your oil temp? Low (relatively) oil temp is saying there is obstruction in the cylinder area. Is this a new/rebuilt engine? Has plane flown before with OK Temps? Are your oil cooler tubes -8 size? Have you checked the vernatherm if high oil temp? Is the oil cooler clean internally? And I mean new or very clean, no sludge or varnish type deposits. From: "Glenn Murray" Subject: COZY: engine cooling Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:04:38 +0100 8 Hours completed now but I can't seem to get the CHT's below 400 in the cruise, all are within 10 degrees of each other.I have made sure the baffles are 110%. I'm using a 6" prop extension,the cowlings are approx 2" away from the prop, could they be too close? do I need to put an extra vent in the upper cowling to aid removal of the air in the low pressure area? Any other tips? Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:27:22 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling Have you made a manometer and took pressure readings inside your cowl? If you have not, then anything you do is speculation and you are just shooting in the dark. Once you have the pressure readings, you will know what is going on inside the cowl, and be able to fine tune your cooling. The article I wrote on cooling is in the archives. Paul Long EZ 214LP Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 08:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Pollock Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling Glen, Where are your CHT probes located? Also, what type of instrument are you using to read the CHTs? Remember, if you are using analog, the cold junction temperature was calibrated at 75 degrees F. If the probe cold junction temperature are not at that temperature, you will have to add or subtract the difference in the calibration temperature and the actual cold junction temperature. They are inversely proportional. Your probes should have come with information on that if they are analog outputs. Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 12:30:09 -0500 Dear Glenn, The allowable temperatures that Lycoming publishes assume that you have downdraft cooling and are using temperature probes on the hot side of the cylinders, which would be the bottom with downdraft cooling. Thermocouples under the spark plugs read 40 degrees fahrenheit hotter than a probe on the same side of the cylinder. So you need to subtract 40 degrees from each of your readings. In other words, if you read 400 under the plug, it would be 360 with a probe, as far as Lycoming is concerned. Thermocouples under the bottom spark plugs would read about 40 degrees less than on top in climb, and about 70 degrees less in cruise. Why don't you move them to the bottom so it makes you feel more comfortable? Nat ---------- > From: Glenn Murray > To: Nat Puffer > Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling > Date: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 1:11 PM > > Hi Nat , > Thanks for the reply, > I have built a 3 place classic here in the UK from plans bought from > Uli Walter in Germany. > I am using thermocouples under the upper spark plugs. > The temperatures were even higher until I filled all the gaps with > silicone sealant. > How do the guys in texas and other hot spots keep their engines cool > if here in europe I can't seem to get the temps down? > Would an exhaust vent like Mark Beduhns help? > Any tips you have that might help, would be appreciated. > Other than the cooling the Plane flies beautifully and is every bit as > fast as quoted. > I have also solved the problem with the canopy opening slightly in > flight,there were very small amounts of play in the bearings behind the > seat which once eliminated by shortening the rods slightly (1/8 ") > I now have a super-tight canopy.All the hooks must also be at the same > angle. > Manouvering at low speeds on the apron 2 up forward CofG is also > a bit tricky. > Once in the air though no one at the field comes close!!! > Regards > glenn > From: "Morten Brandtzaeg" Subject: Re: COZY: engine cooling Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 22:15:08 +0200 I have the oil cooler aft and quite low, almost level with carburetor. No cooling problems whatsoever. Works great both summer and winter. PS: For winter operations I recomment to have the oil vent inside the cowling to avoid icing at the outlet and risk blowing the crank shaft oil seal (rubber band). Brgds Morten Brandtzaeg, LN-USA Cozy III Tel: +47 6126 1050 Fax: +47 6126 4392 Mob: +47 9011 7526From ???@??? Fri Jun 18 22:32:55 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id PAA20190 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA20395 for cozy_builders-list; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:57:50 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [207.172.3.234]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA20389 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 13:57:45 -0400 Received: from administrator (207-172-109-56.s56.as1.war.va.dialup.rcn.com [207.172.109.56]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24874 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "DL Davis" To: Subject: RE: COZY: Electronic Ignition Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:46:03 -0400 Message-ID: <000001beb9ba$d160f300$386daccf@administrator> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <63dcc027.249be1c1@aol.com> Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "DL Davis" X-UIDL: f963a4fa43e85bedcfdcd2ebc3d133bd The use of one electronic ignition with advance timing will decrease, not increase, exhaust gas temp. Starting the burn early with the electronic ignition will only improve the fuel burn, so I don't think it is analagous to the one mag situation. Dewey Davis > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com > [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of EJCV@aol.com > Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 1:54 PM > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Electronic Ignition > > > A recent suggestion that , because one electronic ignition will > give nearly > all the apparent benefit, why fit two, makes me want to comment. > > Lyc. or Conti. engines have dual ignition, with two plugs in each > cylinder > for redundancy. These plugs are siginficantly separated and thus help to > reduce the time for the flame front to spread from them to the > extemities of > the combustion chamber. > > If there is one electronic ignition, with variable timing, and > one mag. with > fixed timing, there is a risk that one will fire sufficiently before the > other that it becomes effectively a one plug operation, as though > one mag has > failed, and part of the charge may be still burning as the exhaust valve > opens. This can require a richer mixture to run smoothly and lead to > overheating. In extreme cases to valve or even piston burning. > > I was taught never to operate for long with a dead mag. because > of this risk > and thus I question the wisdom of running continuously with 1 > Elec. Ign. & 1 > Mag? > > Eddie Vann > Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:47:50 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: RE: Electronic Ignition At 02:46 PM 6/18/99 -0400, DL Davis wrote: >The use of one electronic ignition with advance timing will decrease, not >increase, exhaust gas temp. Starting the burn early with the electronic >ignition will only improve the fuel burn, so I don't think it is analagous >to the one mag situation. >Dewey Davis > >> -----Original Message----- >> Lyc. or Conti. engines have dual ignition, with two plugs in each >> cylinder for redundancy. These plugs are siginficantly separated >>and thus help to reduce the time for the flame front to spread >>from them to the extemities of the combustion chamber. . . . which IS an issue at high manifold pressure ops (full throttle, sea level) because a pressure wave travels across the top of a cylinder faster than the flame front. Detontation is directly related to pressure in the cylinder. If one wishes to run the most advanced timing possible, then igniting the fire from both sides of the cylinder produces an effective advance in timing in spite of the fact that either mag by itself is timed late enough to prevent detonation of the mixture ahead of the flame front under worst case conditions. >> If there is one electronic ignition, with variable timing, and >> one mag. with >> fixed timing, there is a risk that one will fire sufficiently before the >> other that it becomes effectively a one plug operation, as though >> one mag has >> failed, and part of the charge may be still burning as the exhaust valve >> opens. This can require a richer mixture to run smoothly and lead to >> overheating. In extreme cases to valve or even piston burning. The overheating case occurs when timing is too LATE to allow complete combustion of mixture before exhaust valve opens. Since a single mag is already timed late enought to prevent problems at worst case conditions (high manifold pressures) then how would an electronic ignition which is timed equal to or EARLIER than the magneto pose a problem? >> I was taught never to operate for long with a dead mag. because >> of this risk >> and thus I question the wisdom of running continuously with 1 >> Elec. Ign. & 1 >> Mag? Don't know where the prohibition against operating with one mag would have come from . . . the conservative timing of a single mag for best possible performance at worst case conditions is what makes the engine perform poorly on one mag. The effective retardation of timing . . . while it's later than we'd like for best performance, is still timed to prevent engine damage under any power setting should one magneto fail. This makes high altitude performace on one mag quite dismal but still benign with respect to strsses on engine. The fact that an electronic ignition lights the fires many degrees earlier than the companion magneto poses no threat to the engine because of timing is scheduled against RPM and manifold pressure. Exhaust gas temps go DOWN when the slngle electronic ignition. It's possible to measure a further decrease should a second electronic ignition be added but it's very small compared to the initial improvement. However, this phenomenon will be noted only at low power settings, i.e. high altitude. At higher power settings, the electronic ignition timing retards to a point equal to but not later than the magneto hence, no improvement in anything except starting performance. From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 11:43:23 +0200 Subject: COZY: Allison fuel injection system Canardians, I'm planning to use O-360 A1A (180 hp) on my C.Classic with the option of Bendix Fuel injection or, in alternative, Allison system... Can someone give me technical info about the ALLISON FUEL INJ. SYSTEM ? How can I contact them ? (phone / internet /fax) Thanks in advance for your help Massimo Martino Bonicelli COSY CLASSIC From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 16:01:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Allison fuel injection system I like the Bendix since its aircraft equipment, easily maintained, replacements and expertice if needed available at distant airport when traveling. Airflow people are fine, excellent service. If your engine came with Bendix, use it, otherwise your choice either airfow or bendix. Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 08:52:59 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison fuel injection system The Ellison folks have a home page at: http://www.ellison-fluid-systems.com/ You may also consider the Airflow Performance System if you are interested in an alternative to the Bendix. Don Rivera runs it and is at AIRFLOW PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, 864-576-4512. His e-mail is : airflowinc@Juno.com. Eric Westland mfacchinelli@sogei.it wrote: > > Canardians, > I'm planning to use O-360 A1A (180 hp) on my C.Classic with the option of > Bendix Fuel injection or, in alternative, Allison system... > Can someone give me technical info about the ALLISON FUEL INJ. SYSTEM ? > How can I contact them ? (phone / internet /fax) > Thanks in advance for your help > Massimo Martino Bonicelli > COSY CLASSIC From: Cozy7971@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:33:31 EDT Subject: COZY: Window Screens on Canards I imagine the subject line caught a few peoples attention. No, I'm not suggesting a canopy replacement for hot days. I found the following accident report on the web and remember reading about several other incidents of nuts, bolts, etc. exiting from the cowling and going through the prop. Invariably this creates an unpleasant situation. While reading the article, it occured to me that it would be fairly straightforward to mount a screen (similar to a window screen) across the back of the cowling (no, I don't have any specific thoughts as to how to do it). This could catch any debris and still allow for proper airflow. Obviously it would not be a 100% solution as the screen or screen mounting hardware could also come loose. It would seem that the screen would be easy to preflight though. My questions are: 1. Has anyone tried this? If so, what were the results? 2. Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the idea as being hare brained? If so, what were your thoughts? 3. Is this a new concept to some of you? If so, what are your thoughts? Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 ---------------------------- July, August, 1996 Accident Reports >From CP86, Page 11 (October, 1996) On August 6, 1996 after departing Oshkosh for a scheduled fuel stop in Cedar Rapids, a Long-EZ pilot experienced a vibration that rapidly became very severe. Suspecting a propeller failure, the pilot shut the engine down and pulled the nose up to bleed off airspeed in order to stop the propeller from wind milling while establishing a safe place to land. On the ground the pilot discovered damage to the right side exhaust system where about 6 inches of the tailpipe was missing plus damage to one blade of the propeller. It was broken chord-wise at a point behind where the exhaust pipe exited the cowling, approximately 6" from the tip. This break was about 2" wide and from that point a tapering break toward the back of the prop running toward the hub for about 12". Everything outboard and aft was missing. The pilot believes that the exhaust pipe broke and exited the cowling, striking and breaking one blade of the propeller. The first break set up a vibration that caused the second break. From: Wayne_Blackler@ansett.com.au Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 08:27:59 +1000 Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards G'Day, I recall seeing an article on Mike Melvill's Vari Viggen in Sport Aviation that had pictured a fairly heavy mesh across the entire outlet area of the cowl. I have never seen it used since. This would obviously not cover the exhausts unless you had the type that exit out the air outlet area of the cowl. It always looked like a good idea to me but I wonder why I have not seen it around since. I would like to hear Mike's comments... Maybe an Oshkosh question ? Regards Wayne Blackler O-360 Long EZ AUSTRALIA _____________________________________________________________________ CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Ansett Australia immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Ansett Australia. _____________________________________________________________________ From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 19:10:13 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards I have had 3 propellers crack due to debris colliding with a blade. 1 was before first flight, something off the runway/taxiway. 1 was an exhaust valve that broke up and came out of one of the 4 exhaust pipes 1 was debris off the runway/taxiway. My cowl fasteners are Camloc 4002 series (except 2 #10 machine screws) and have not lost one yet (knock on wood for good luck). With the availability of the camlocs, I don't know why anyone uses screws (my 2 are due to lack of space at a location), with all the millions of times the cowl gets removed, a quarter turn is all it takes, and they are spring loaded and don't vibrate loose. Never have lost anything out the cowl air exit opening. Have on my lower priority list to make a new set of wheel pants that are more of a fender or mud flap for the main wheels to shield prop from stones thrown up. The Cessna Citation has a flange to deflect water, etc. molded into the tires. From: alwick@juno.com Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 15:35:22 -0700 Subject: Re: COZY: Window Screens on Canards On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 17:33:31 EDT Cozy7971@aol.com writes: > how to do it). This could catch any debris and still allow for proper airflow. > Obviously it would not be a 100% solution as the screen or screen mounting > hardware could also come loose. It would seem that the screen would be easy > to preflight though. > > My questions are: > 1. Has anyone tried this? If so, what were the results? No one that I know of has tried it. > 2. Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the idea as being > hare brained? If so, what were your thoughts? All new ideas are immediately shelved as being hare brained. Know what I mean? I'd recommend tallying up the number of similar failure reports. Separate the ones that have engine compartment as source (vs rocks). Then estimate the real risk using that info. Keeping in mind that only a small portion of those failures would ever be reported. I would also expect engine components would tend to strike the inner portion of prop, thus do more denting than fracturing. Don't know. I also would expect a small mesh screen would retard air flow thru cowl. > 3. Is this a new concept to some of you? If so, what are > your thoughts? Definitely new concept. Your solution is theoretically very effective. Instead of trying to prevent the source of loose components, you devised a method to alter the EFFECT of the failure.... the nut still can come off, but now it just rolls around in engine cover instead of hitting prop. Valuable concept. I have a pusher ultralight aircraft. Broke two props in total of 1 hour flight time. Rocks kicked up by tires hit wood prop. Causes were: no wheel pants, airport with remnants of gravel road at midfield, wheel spacing, weak prop material. That said, my gut feel is that risk of mod to your plane is greater than risk of engine component related prop failure. -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr.95% complete. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 22:05:28 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Window Screens on Canards and other things.... Dick, re "My questions are: 1. Has anyone tried this? If so, what were the results? 2. Has anyone thought about it and immediately shelved the idea as being hare brained? If so, what were your thoughts? 3. Is this a new concept to some of you? If so, what are your thoughts?" My thoughts on the subject - and I never thought of it before but you've stimulated my brain and I'll comment on any airplane idea just for the hell of it - are this: Wire baskets are used on air boats all the time, probably to keep people and flying alligators from going through the prop. But these machines don't get up to lift off speed of a Cozy, so how would they work on an airplane? No doubt such a device would introduce a greater risk of coming apart and removing the prop than anything that might come off the airplane. A screen door? Are you thinking a fine screen to keep big bugs off the prop or something to snag say, a Canada Goose? Either way, it will have to be mighty hefty to catch and hold anything at 160 knots. Turbine engines have always been and still are subject to FOD damage. To my knowledge, no one has ever put a screen in front of the compressor (except maybe on the PT6 turbo props) probably because it couldn't be built strong enough to not come apart when something hit it and also it would be a good ice catcher when you don't need to catch ice. The best we can do in the this area, I think, is to make sure everything inside the cowling is tied down, check the pipes once in a while for cracks and lose bolts, and don't fly off of gravel strips. dd ps... (Speaking of gravel strips, I spent some time in Alaska this month with an old friend and relative, who is a retired bush pilot, and his Super Cup. He has numerous little landing spots on the Southwest Kenia Peninsula ...all for the express purpose of fishing or hunting or simply to get away from civilization. We flew into this one site no more than 500 feet long and with no more than 10 feet of wing tip clearance from the trees. He says the trick is not to look at the trees but to focus on the middle of the opening and it works, at least for him. He said quite a few guys had hit the trees at this site and I said if they keep that up, the runway will get wider. We hiked about a mile through the brush, found the salmon we had spotted from the air, took the legal limit of 6 big fat ones and were out of there in about 2 hours. Take off procedure in the Cub is rather simple - full throttle, stick forward to get the tail up, stick aft and you're airborne and out of there. What a flying machine!! Truly, one of the best airplanes ever built for down to earth, literally, flying.) From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 20:46:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Cooling air outlet at Prop Once or twice, I have found screws in the aft area of the cowling, where I reached in the opening to retrieve them. With a typical opening, I don't think most debris would exit the opening, but just lay in the bottom cowl against the baffle fiberglass fence. Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 09:36:47 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: CHT and Landing Brake Problems solved. Paul, re "Well, I made the second flight yesterday. A solid .7 hours." Good show! Just a note on this business of flight testing and one more thing to check.....did you see the article on fretting streaks on the starter ring in the latest issue of CSA newsletter? I have had very small streaks after every flight, barely noticeable, and in talking to Judy Saber at Prop Hub Extension, have concluded my bolts may be bottomed out or the extension surface/starter ring has a slight nick which prevents a good friction bond. I will remove the extension today to confirm it...... dd Date: Sat, 03 Jul 1999 14:32:04 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Fret no more... I must admit, I was, at first reading, a bit skeptical of the CSA newsletter #55 article on prop flange/extension fretting. Those lines sure look like and feel like oil in the real world. But skeptic I am no more. I removed my prop and extension for exploration because the starter ring was showing ever so tiny lines after each flight. As I reported earlier on the subject, my bolts very tight and not bottomed out. What I found was a small build up of crushed paint and dirt between the extension and starter ring. It looked, from the impression on the ring, like the extension was contacting the ring surface on about 70% of the area. There were several shades of gray and black in the contact area and also a little white around the lugs. I wet sanded both surfaces to remove all paint and dirt, reinstalled everything, torqued the extension to 60-65 foot pounds (used Piper torque numbers) and blasted off for a test hop. After 30 minutes of flight, there were no lines on the starter ring. I am a believer. What looks and feels like oil in this scenario is probably very fine metal coming from the 2 parts that are moving against each other ever so slightly. A friend who is pulling an annual on his twin Comanche next door has lots of lines of the same material on his right starter ring. How serious this is, we don't know. I'm sure his IA will have something to say about it. How many of you guys flying have a clean starter ring? dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 07:43:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Fret no more... I have experienced fretting of some of the propellors I have been testing that was bad enough to cause charring (heating enough to brown the wood lightly) from movement similar to a boyscout making fire with 2 sticks. This has happened both with tight and bolts that loosened during the flight. For a 320, the prop hub and flange should be 7" diameter, anything less is marginal. Also the radius blending the leading edge to the hub must not be too tight of a radius. Watch for slight dust or other deposits between the prop and flange near the leading edge lines. I am told that on a forward propeller installation, loose bolts is noticable sometimes as an odor of burning wood, but that is not us. We do know that the large hub/flange works, but don't have a specific reason why some props are not an issue, but others are. One issue may be an out of balance or excentric spinner/bulkhead/fairing. Lots of items that can be out of balance, exhibiting vibration modes or whatever. Klause indicated at SunNFun that the Kiss spinner blade opening reinforcement is important to prevent the spinner from deforming due to centrifugal forces. I will have a Woofter 6" long, 6" diameter prop flange for sale shortly, I'm switching to a 7" flange. Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 15:03:48 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: Prop Extension fretting.... For those of you interested - I removed my prop extension this morning and found the bolts were not bottomed out (they are Sensenich with plenty of unused thread) and they had been torqued to over 50 foot pounds. I think the problem is paint on the starter ring. The extension flange is not making a good mate to the ring gear wheel surface. I will remove the paint completely and smooth the surface with 1000 or better sand paper, put it back together, and see what happens. dd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:08:25 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: COZY: Re: Cooling Pull your vernitherm and place it next to metal ruler in a pan full of water. Place a cooking thermometer in the water. Heat the water to 200 deg. You should be able to see the vernitherm expand. If it expands look carefully at the seat on the accessory case. It should be shinney around the entire edge. If it does not expand replace the valve. For an O-320 the part number is 75944. Now that my airplane is flying, I am having the same problem you are. Last night I checked my Vernitherm in the way I discribed above and sure enough it was not expanding. My indications where simular. CHTs in the red and oil temp. at 220 deg. F. The only reason I suspected the vernitherm was I had seen the problem before. Now for the other part of the story. There is a good possibility that you are only getting 1 1/2" of pressure drop across the cylinders. Make sure you use the cotton balls. If you have the cotton balls around the end of the tubes then the orientation does not matter because the cotton ball acts as a difuser. You are positioning your tubes properly. One at the high pressure side near the fin and one on the bottom. I place the tubes about an inch behind the spark plugs on the fins and secure the tubes to the push rods or intake tubes. If necessary to hold the tubes in place, I loosely warp safety wire around the tubes. Paul Long EZ 214LP At 07:57 6/29/99 -0400, you wrote: >Hi paul. >I used your manometer to find cooling problems on my Vari-viggen N106VV. >I couldn't get any readings above 1-1/2 inches. Cylinder head temps are >in the 450 - 550 range. The tube ends were placed at 90 deg to the air >flow, actually tied to the pushrod tubes. Is this correct, or should >the ends be facing the fins? I've still got a problem after replacing >the cowl seals, plugging all leaks, and adding ramps to the inlet. I >guess this sounds familiar. I'm reluctant to blame the vernatherm just >yet, the oil temp doesn't seem to be a problem. However, I'll pull it >out and check it today. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions. >Thanks. >Ed Dokus > > > Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:19:25 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cooling Paul, re " There is a good possibility that you are only getting 1 1/2" of pressure drop across the cylinders." Another area that might be contributing to loss of air across the cylinders is the outboard wing/center section spar joint. Lots of air will escape past that junction and forward out the space between the wing and strake. Also check for air leaks around the oil dip stick door and around the oil cooler. I also sealed up the area around the exhaust stacks with the handy 3M insulator tape on the cowling. There is no question high CHT's are related to high oil temp. But like the hen and the egg, which came first, I don't know. The 13 vane oil cooler is almost a must, in my opinion. I flew with the 7 vane cooler for 60 some hours and found it OK for a launch and cruise at altitude, but for low altitude high OAT situations, the oil temp had to be monitored constantly. Three take offs and landings in succession with OAT at 90° resulted in an oil temp over 200° and corresponding high CHT's. OAT is a mighty factor in all this. I've found that at 60° or less, an oil cooler probably wouldn't be needed, i.e., the oil temp doesn't get up to the magic 190° when the valve opens. But most of us don't live in Alaska so we need good oil cooling. dd Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 10:56:37 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Cooling > There is no question high CHT's are related to high oil temp. But >like the hen and the egg, which came first, I don't know. The only reason I suspect the vernitherm when it comes to the combination of high CHT, and oil temp. is experience. You will find in the Cozy archives an article I wrote about the first encounter with this problem. To make a long story short, after butchering a cowling trying to increase airflow, we placed manometer tubes in the cowl and found out we had gobs of pressure differential across the cylinders. We changed out the vernitherm valve and all the temperatures fell to well below limits. The moral of the story get the data, and then make changes based on the knowledge. Checking the vernitherm is easy, so eliminate it from the possible problems and it is one less thing to worry about. Paul Krasa Long EZ 214LP Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 15:57:41 -0500 From: vance atkinson Subject: COZY: improved fuel effeciency In answer to your question, "will the electronic ignition give 10% more fuel efficiency," the answer is absolutely YES. It may be more or less about one or two percent but I documented mine at about .8 of a gallon. Its easy to do. Since I have one Roses first units out, Jeff helped me put in a variable spark advance in the cockpit, and a digital read out of the advance. There is a definite advantage of advancing the spark vs. not. To prove it fly the plane at altitude all trimmed up and in a cruising state. Note speed, RPM MP and Fuel Flow. Then simply turn the electronic advance off and see what happens. Notice I said ADVANCE, not the electronic unit itself. The advance is what gives you the power, smoothness and mileage. Any doubting thomas is welcome to fly in my aircraft to observe this change, providing they are willing to bet a tankful of gas that there is no savings of fuel conserved given a standard setting. Saving fuel is one of the perks of using and advance, (at 10,000' its advanced about 38 to 40 degrees) . Using a solid state electronic device to trigger all this wonderful stuff gives you peace of mind as there are NO moving parts to wear out. I would suspect if you could physically advance a std. aircraft mag the same amount of degrees in flight you would get the same spectacular results. By the way I haven't run any mags since 1991 and I have had one failure of a magnetic pickup coil in all that time, I seriously doubt a mag would go that distance. Vance Atkinson COZY N43CZ 1200 TT From: RoyN9869L@aol.com Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 19:54:43 EDT Subject: COZY: Ellison TB Presently putting my engine package together, I'm using a Lyc O-320 AIA, 150 hp, I have all the accessories minus a carb which requires an MS4-SPA, but would rather have an Ellison throttle body, any of you got one for sale due to an injection upgrade? But the carb will do as a second choice, hope to have many responses? R. Roy Cozy 3 From: "Bill Kastenholz" Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI Date: Sun, 4 Jul 1999 20:45:17 -0400 About a week ago I inquired about using the Ellison TBI for the O-360 engine I am having built. I received many public and private responses from some very knowledgable and respected individuals in the canard community. Thank you for the great support! After reading through my e-mails, the Cozy MKIV plans, and the Ellison literature; I have decided to use the Ellison TBI. Here are some of the reasons: 1. Everyone who responded liked or highly approved of the Ellison. This included users with 15 years of experienced and more. 2. You can expect up to 1 gal/hr better fuel comsumption vs the Marvel-Schebler carb. if you properly lean in cruise. At first I thought, yah! more money up front to save $100-$150 per year. Another advantage is only 1/3 as much money for the eventual overhaul. The TBI will cost me about $1,000 more in the initial cost. 3. The lower overhaul cost could result from the simplicity of the Ellison vs the carburetors which have many times as many parts. 4. The Ellison EFS-4-5 weighs 3 LBS. vs 5.25 LBS. for the Marvel-Schebler. 5. The Ellison produces more power and smoother operation. 6. The Cozy MKIV plans describe installation of the TBI. 7. The company literature indicates a good customer support and guaranty of satisfaction. These were some of the major reasons for my decision. It was pointed out, I will need carb. heat and an electric primer system. Fuel injection may be better for other reasons and less suceptible to icing, but also cost more. Hope this helps someone out there in their hot garage! Bill Kastenholz Date: Sun, 04 Jul 1999 21:08:17 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Bill, re " Hope this helps someone out there in their hot garage!" I concur with all you say about the Ellison TBI. My experience level is very light compared to some of the guys on the forum, but the 70 plus hours I've logged in an old engine and a newly overhauled one has been very satisfactory. The only comment I have which you may or may not have heard is that it must be leaned very aggressively on the ground at idle power. My overhauled engine quit on the runway after the first landing because it flooded out. The idle speed was at about 500 rpm. I kicked it up to 1000 but found that to be no good because the airplane did not want to stop flying. I now have it reset to 650-700 and lean the engine on final. On very hot days, like the 96° in St. Louis today, the engine won't run unless I pull the mixture about half way back, and then it runs very smooth at 650-700. When going to full throttle for take off, I move the mixture to full rich as I push the throttle up. After take off, I pull the throttle out of 100% and also pull the mixture back just a bit. At full rich this thing is pushing 15-16 gph through the engine which is ridiculous. It doesn't need that much fuel for cooling or any other reason. The Ellison unit I have does not have an idle mixture setting needle. There is a procedure in the manual to set it, but mine does not have a needle to set. I think it was deleted to simplify the unit. The engine will not quit at a 1000 rpm when the mixture is pulled to idle cut off. It's drawing so much air it keeps sucking fuel out of the injector. At 650-700 it will quit right now. I have electric prime, but never use it in warm weather. Just push the mixture to rich, turn on the boost pump, hit the start button and it's running. Jeff Rose' electronic ignition makes the start happen on one or two compression strokes. The engine runs rough until I pull the mixture way back to smooth it out. Then it just sits there and purrs. If you have not decided to go with a 13 vane oil cooler, do think about it. Last summer I was flying around with a 7 vane unit and had to monitor the oil temp more than I care to do. One could get by but why put up with that chore when the big unit will do the job without thinking about it. Wicks sells an uncertified unit for about 35% of the certified ones. Hope you are airborne soon. There airplanes are a lot of fun to fly. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 18:44:54 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Was said This doesn't sound right, have you talked to Ellison? What is the experience of others. I would consider this dangerous, and ground the aircraft until corrected. With original equipment accessories, or modifications, the engine should as a minimum perform according to the engine manufacturer's manual, in this case no leaning below 5000' (or there abouts) and run smoothly, including at normal idle speed. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:27:20 -0500 Builders, I believe it is typical of the Ellison that you should lean it on the ground at idle, if for no other reason than to avoid fouling the plugs before mag check and takeoff. Nat ---------- > From: David Domeier > To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com > Cc: canard-aviators@canard.com; cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI > Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 8:29 AM > > Carl, > > re "I would consider this dangerous, and ground the aircraft until > corrected." > > Give me a break, Carl. > > One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that an engine > must be leaned when it is running rough due to a rich mixture. The > fuel/air mixture ratio is the same at 20°F as it is100°F. The constant > fuel meted at one particular setting can not accomodate that dramatic > change in air density. I lean the engine on take off at high OAT's for > that reason. To run a full rich mixture to 5000' without considering > OAT is not good operating practice, IMHO. There is no perfect mixture > setting to accomodate the difference in OAT in which we operate. My > procedure has been to accomodate that need and it has been working just > fine. My CHT's are well with in the manufacture's limits at all times. > > I may well be screwed up in not locating the idle mixture setting > screw on my TBI unit due to a dated manual, but I have not been flying > an unsafe airplane. > > dd > Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:29:31 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Carl, re "I would consider this dangerous, and ground the aircraft until corrected." Give me a break, Carl. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that an engine must be leaned when it is running rough due to a rich mixture. The fuel/air mixture ratio is the same at 20°F as it is100°F. The constant fuel meted at one particular setting can not accomodate that dramatic change in air density. I lean the engine on take off at high OAT's for that reason. To run a full rich mixture to 5000' without considering OAT is not good operating practice, IMHO. There is no perfect mixture setting to accomodate the difference in OAT in which we operate. My procedure has been to accomodate that need and it has been working just fine. My CHT's are well with in the manufacture's limits at all times. I may well be screwed up in not locating the idle mixture setting screw on my TBI unit due to a dated manual, but I have not been flying an unsafe airplane. dd From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: [c-a] Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 10:31:23 -0400 Answer about the Ellison leaning on the ground question: My experience after 500hrs on a Ellison. The Ellison mixture control has a very large range. Mine will go from very rich to cutoff in about 90 degrees of rotation. The stop on the mixture control is adjustable but even screwed all the way in you still have a very rich condition. If the cockpit control is set to match this condition. (full rich stop matches full rich stop on TBI). The engine will be in a very rich condition that is only satisfactory for a sea level takeoff. Leaning on the ground is normal and reduces plug fouling (not a reason to be concerned.) Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ From ???@??? Tue Jul 06 22:33:02 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id VAA16730 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA24628 for cozy_builders-list; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:13 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from zeus.eniac.com (poseidon.argonaut.net [206.98.183.1]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24621 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:03 -0400 Received: from argonaut.net ([200.44.59.209]) by zeus.eniac.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA17282 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:29 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: <37834E58.B66938ED@argonaut.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:55:52 -0400 From: Carlos Vicente León X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cozy forum Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI References: <199975194255241@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@bFrom ???@??? Tue Jul 06 22:33:02 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id VAA16730 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA24628 for cozy_builders-list; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:13 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from zeus.eniac.com (poseidon.argonaut.net [206.98.183.1]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA24621 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:13:03 -0400 Received: from argonaut.net ([200.44.59.209]) by zeus.eniac.com (8.8.8/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA17282 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:18:29 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: <37834E58.B66938ED@argonaut.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 08:55:52 -0400 From: Carlos Vicente León X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cozy forum Subject: COZY: Ellison TBI References: <199975194255241@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Carlos Vicente León X-UIDL: ed3a5f54e0a144b44695969e73ff6535 cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > Was said > > This doesn't sound right, have you talked to Ellison? What is the experience of others. We have the same problem in our twin cozy with Suzuki engines and Ellison EFS-5 TBI's Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 08:05:15 -0700 From: Eric Westland Subject: Re: COZY: Fret no more... David Domeier wrote: > > I must admit, I was, at first reading, a bit skeptical of the CSA > newsletter #55 article on prop flange/extension fretting. Those lines > sure look like and feel like oil in the real world. > > But skeptic I am no more. Nor am I. When I went up to the airport yesterday, I looked carefully and there were the lines. Mine were much fainter than the CSA newsletter photo, but they were there none the less. Now, they could have been there from the previous engine installation, but I doubt it. I don't recall ever cleaning the flywheel. I also know that I had a very slight oil leak at the crankshaft plug, so I had re-set that as well. However, the little amount of oil that did come through left a trail. When I pulled the prop extension yesterday, I could see a light trace of oil where the extension face did not make contact with the flywheel face. This was due to some very light build up of it on the flywheel face from the previous installation. I had not even noticed it before, but I wet sanded it like David did and it's now absolutely clean (and flat). Thanks for the heads up, David. Eric Westland N325PD Mukileto, WA From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 21:52:57 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Was said What caught my attention was I think you are at around 1000' airport elevation, about the same as here, and not at a high altitude airport. Every landing checklist I have seen, says "Mixture Rich". How would one lean partially on landing? Too lean, and a go round is not the time to play with mixture, one should be able to go full rich and have consistantly a good running engine! Even at high altitude airports, I usually will go to full rich even at a high altitude (5000'+), but may temper that some with a light leaning, but err on the rich side), and after going to full trottle, trimming, gear up, etc. then adjust the mixture for max. power. If another pilot flys the aircraft (hope it never happens, but due to a minor medical issue, the regular pilot is unable to fly it home, and a friendly pilot flys it home as a favor). (Comments on low altitude airports) I don't lean on the ground and not bothered with fouled plugs, friend leans his Mooney (IO-360) on the ground most times. Mixture must be slightly rich with mixture rich to err on safe side, a lean mixture is bad. Graham Singleton suggested an internal leak which sounds worth checking out. With all the Ellison's out there, it still doesn't sound good to me. I don't give breaks when safety is an issue, If that Ellison is performing correctly, then Ellison has some real calibration issues that are not safe. If its not correct then fix it. An aircraft should not have a fix it list. And I ask again - Ellison's comments??, Other's experience??? Read something about old manual - Always contact the manufacturer for latest manuals, not a place to skimp, check for A.D.s, service letters, etc. The Lycoming 320 (both injected or carb)(I'm sure the 360 is very similar) idle mixture adjustment says an increase of more than 50 RPM as gradually leaning indicates too rich of a mixture, and an immediate decrease in RPM indicates a lean idle mixture. This is the performance required on original equipment, or any replacement! Date: Wed, 06 Jul 1999 03:25:13 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI Carl, Thanks for expressing your concerns on flight safety. And I mean it. If every pilot were as concerned about safety as are you, the general aviation accident rate would be less frightening. I read the NTSB monthly reports and to see 50-60 body bag reports some months is most disconcerting. re "An aircraft should not have a fix it list...." It is not a fix it list. It is a matter of operating technique. Without doubt, the industry, over the years has tried to present a homogenized set of operating procedures to accommodate the lowest common denominator pilot (the dumbest). That in itself is good. There are pilots who do not think much about aviation, except to get into an airplane and fly it on rare occasion. If such a pilot sticks to what he has been taught, he might not get into trouble. Those of us who are engaged in the subject of this forum are not run of the mill average pilots. To a man, I think we are very concerned about safety in what we are doing and also aware of the vagaries and departures from the industry "standard" in "experimenting" with our machines. None of these aircraft are certifiable because the vagaries and departures from the industry "standard". And I choose to extend that philosophy to a personally developed operating technique for my unique airplane. I would never teach it to a student pilot, but I think it is best for my engine and airplane, and it works for me. I always leaned my LEZ very aggressively. In 250 hours plus, I never once experienced lead fouled plugs and the exhaust stacks were a pleasing gray color. The engine had over 2200 hours SMOH and ran like a fine clock. Meanwhile, at the same airport, the 0235 powered trainers were experiencing rough running engines with fouled plugs that had to be removed and cleaned in less than 50 hours time. (talk about a safety of flight issue!) Lycoming finally approved the REM37BY plug and a procedure of leaning the engine even at traffic pattern altitude to solve the problem created by 100LL fuel. I know experienced pilots who NEVER lean their engines. One can try to explain why that is not a good idea, even talk about the Mooney driver who ran out of fuel on an extended flight that could have been completed safely with proper leaning, but it is to no avail. So be it. You won't get into trouble most of the time but it is not necessarily the best way to operate your airplane. In think, in philosophy, we agree, Carl. But, I simply can not adopt a set of operating techniques that I feel do not apply to my airplane, the TBI and the engine. The TBI does not operate like a carburetor or fuel injection system. The technique of operating it can not be a rote industry standard procedure. It is an experimental device that happens to be quite simple and works very well. But it must be operated with a grain of common sense and I do not think a little common sense in this business in anyway compromises safety. dd Date: Wed, 07 Jul 1999 10:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Pollock Subject: Re: COZY: Ellison TBI cdenk wrote: >the engine should as a minimum >perform according to the engine manufacturer's manual, in this case no >leaning below 5000' (or there abouts) and run smoothly, >including at normal idle speed. To all who have questions about leaning, I suggest you read a very good article in AVweb called Pelican's Perch by John Deakin called "Mixture Magic". The article can be found at http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0018.html. I have used his procedures and got exactly the same results as the author did - lower CHTs across the board, closer CHT spread, lower oil temp, lower fuel flow, no fowled plugs, and a better running engine. I thought I already knew all there was about mixture until I read the article. Try it, you will like it. Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more... Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 15:00:03 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilhelmson, Jack > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 10:29 AM > To: Wilhelmson, Jack; 'david010@earthlink.net' > Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilhelmson, Jack > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 1999 9:29 AM > To: 'david010@earthlink.net'; Wilhelmson, Jack > Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more... > > David: > > My bolts are 3/8" and I also had fretting. I removed the extension > and found some small dents and nicks in the extension flange that > were holding > it from plane contact. I worked them down and added one washer to my > bolts to make sure they are not > bottoming. I think the bottoming is the real problem because the AN > bolt thread length is very close. > The bolts are AN bolts and the Aircraft repair bible says 390" lbs > (32.5 ft lbs) max. > So that is what I am using. > > Wood Prop bolt torque is the question with many answers. I use 25 ft > lbs on 3/8" bolts and Demuth > who made my prop seems to think that is excessive. I have come to > the conclusion that > the type wood in the prop is what determines the recommended torque > and that is why > we get many different answers from different prop builders. > > Not too long ago Mr Denk (who is a active particapant of this forum > and a prop tester for Sensenich) > ask all the list menbers to submit their prop bolt torques to him > for a "pole". You know you can find the answer > to any question with a pole: Right! > > Ok Carl, how about sharing the results of your pole with us? > > Thanks for the reply. David > > Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Domeier [SMTP:david010@earthlink.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 1972 3:52 AM > To: Wilhelmson, Jack > Subject: Re: COZY: Fret no more... > > Jack, > > Re bolt size - I bought 'em from Sensenich - they are > 1/2". > > One guy got all concerned that I torqued 'em to 60-65 > pounds...thinking it was the prop torque. It is the > extension to engine > flange torque. Just in case you're wondering. My prop > bolts are from > Performance and are on at 40-45 pounds. Also 1/2" > > Thanks for the infor on your TBI... > > dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:33:16 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: COZY: Fret no more... Jack said < (I, Carl) ask all the list menbers to submit their prop bolt torques to him > for a "pole". You know you can find the answer > to any question with a pole: Right! > > Ok Carl, how about sharing the results of your pole with us? Here are the results: Nil No one responded! Several times I have asked for basic data from the group on a variety of subjects, and have had few if any response. I heartily thank those that have contributed. When I have asked for info, it has been where I (or in a few instances others) have been experiencing some issue, and I'm trying to determine if this is the norm, or whether this is the unusual. THe last time was on someone elses Ellison problem. Right now with 3/8" prop bolts, and an 6" flange I am using 350 or 400 in-lbs., this is my opinion what is needed with a yellow birch prop. I am changing to heavier bolts and a 7" flange shortly, I have a new Woofter extension on order. My present Woofter extension is for sale and if anyone is interested please contact me privately for details. From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:34:02 EDT Subject: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question I have positioned my 0-360 behind my Stagger EZ to construct my motor mount. The engines thrust line is 7" higher than the Long-EZ or Cozy. Am I correct in my understanding that the reason for the engine thrust line to be 1.5 degrees relative to the center line of the fuselage (the rear -prop end- of the engine higher than the front) is so the vertical plane of the propeller will be perpendicular to the relative wind in flight? Steve Wright Aircraft Works LLC: Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:25:40 -0500 (CDT) From: Tom Brusehaver Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question >Dave is correct. That was a problem with the Prescott Pusher. When you >added power, the nose would go down. On take off, you had to chop power to >rotate. Not a very desireable characteristic. A lake amphibian (I've heard the seawind does too), will have the same phenomenon. The Lake Amphib will litterally jump off the water if you chop power at the right time, some poeple use that as a short field (lake?) technique. Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 17:22:36 -0400 From: Carl Denk Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question Taking several numbers from recent messages: Thrust = 400 lbs. Line of trust highrer be 7" Guess at center of lift of canard to wing = 90" Then the added load on the canard down, and wing upward = 400 x 7/90 = 31 lbs., not a lot, but added load on the canard is not desirable, likely significant changes in trim with changes in power settings will result. My Cosy has 37 lbs on the nose gear, which is basically the same location as the canard when empty, and it has a definate affect on runway length and speeds. Would be better if the line of thrust was lower than usual, but there is clearance to the prop tips too. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:42:13 -0500 Builders, Dave is correct. That was a problem with the Prescott Pusher. When you added power, the nose would go down. On take off, you had to chop power to rotate. Not a very desireable characteristic. Nat ---------- > From: David Domeier > To: SWrightFLY@aol.com > Cc: cozy_builders@canard.com; canard-aviators@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Engine alignment question > Date: Friday, July 09, 1999 10:38 AM > > Steve, > > re "Am I correct in my understanding that the reason for the engine > thrust line > to be 1.5 degrees relative to the center line of the fuselage (the rear > -prop > end- of the engine higher than the front) is so the vertical plane of > the > propeller will be perpendicular to the relative wind in flight?" > > Yes that makes sense, assuming 1.5° is an adequate angle of attack > at some point in the cruse envelope. It probably is. > > It would also seem logical to assume that if you are mounting the > engine 7" above where the LEZ and Cozy engines are mounted, you will > experience some pitch change when you change power. Your thrust line > will be above the center of gravity if the Stagger is otherwise simular > to the LEZ/Cozy. This effect would be contrary, in a sense, because > when power is added the nose will go down, and when power is reduced, > the nose will tend to rise. > > dd > From: "PHIL CHASE" Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Re: Engine alignment question Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:16:33 -0700 Steve - I think your assumptions are the right ones. The thrust and drag vectors will always pass thru the center of gravity theoretacal point during flight. If thrust is 7" above drag it makes a force couple that will drop the nose if they are parallel You can adjust the thrust offset angle with shims (large Washers) at the firewall in a flight test program. Model airplane designers/builders/flyers like me and Burt have learned about that. Phil Chase From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:07:29 -0500 I have a related question concerning the Ellison as installed on the Cozy Mk4. I have mine set up according to plans, made the filter box according to plans and am using the recommended air filter. Carb heat per plans except the connector for cabin heat, made my own assembly that attaches to the firewall with a metal gate valve to shut off air through the firewall. Now the question: What happens if the air filter ices up? If this goes to the point of engine failure before it is noticed can it be cleared? Dead engines produce little heat! I have been contemplating a spring loaded door in the air filter lid that would open at some differential in case of filter plugging for any reason. Don't know what would plug it except ice. Anybody else have any thoughts about this? John Epplin Mk4 #467, starting fill and prime. From: john.cannon@lennoxind.com Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:33:01 -0500 Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI I am sure Ben Ellison can give us the answers, in the meantime, my two cents worth. There are potential problem areas for ice to form. One is on the fuel distribution tube, which will cause a reduction in fuel and therefore a leaning of the fuel mixture until the engine can no longer keep running. Another is in the intake manifold itself, where it is possible to have moisture freeze. In this event, the aircraft probably has flown into an area of super cooled moisture, and there will be airframe icing likely at the same time. What you describe sounds like the former situation, and heat application should have an immediate recovery effect. John, N4ZX From: PC :Wilhelmson@scra.org[SMTP:PC :Wilhelmson@scra.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 12:20 PM To: david010@earthlink.net; canard-aviators@canard.com Cc: canard-aviators@canard.com; cozy_builders@canard.com Subject: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] David and other Ellison users: I have been running a Ellison for a 500 hrs and in spite of my satisfaction with it I have a lack of understanding about how it actually acts when icing is present. Several times when I suspected icing the engine felt like it almost cutoff for just a split second. I cannot logically relate this to icing in a normal carburetor because it fells completely different. In all cases the engine continued to run perfectly for many hrs after this happened, and in in all cases the conditions were right for icing. So I have to assume that icing was the cause. I wonder if other users have had this same experience. I am rather paranoid about this because I did have one complete engine failure due to icing with the Ellison. My carb heat system was not effective enough in that case. I have changed it since then to make sure it is effective. I would also like to install a temp probe in the Ellison to be able to monitor the temperature. Since it does not have a port for this I wonder where the best position for it would be. If Ben Ellison is monitoring this list maybe he could give us his views and recommendations on the above subjects. I welcome all users of the Ellison TBI to share there opinions and experiences on this with me and the list. Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ \ ->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|- / -For details on sponsors of this list, copyrights, and how to remove -yourself from this list, please visit: http://www.canard.com/ca-ending.html (c) 1997,1998, 1999 Canard Aviators. support@canard.com / -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< \ Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:42:01 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI Jack, Thanks for sharing your experience with the TBI. My experience is quite limited - about 80 hours - so I can not report any icing events. I did call Ellison about installing a temp sensor in the unit and Ben suggested not doing it because it would screw up the incoming airflow. I did install a cheap radio shack type temp sensor just aft of the carb heat door to see what the temp change was with the heat on. Unfortunately it took about a minute for this unit to respond to any temp change. I only did it once and the temp rise was about 10°F using the plan heat system. I had a Cessna quit cold once at 10,500 due to carb ice. The surface temp that day was in the 90's. Unfortunately, while the carb heat system is certified, they are not worth much to get rid of ice. By the time it is needed the heat available is insufficient. They do prevent ice if applied early. Incidently, that Cessna started running again at about 5,000 feet. It cured itself in warmer air. dd From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:54:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: [c-a] RE: COZY: Ellison TBI There should (MUST) be an alternate air supply. With my Bendix injector, I have a butterfly that opens to the cowl area after the air filter. Its not only ice, but dust (volcanoes), and bugs (locusts, grasshoppers, canadian soldiers,etc. With most injectors you don't need carb heat (heated alternate air), but need the alternate air. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: Ellison TB Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:30:32 -0000 Builders, Ben Ellison did a study on ice formation in the Ellison, and produced a video showing what happens. The main point of ice collection is on the fuel tube. But in the video, the ice, after forming, broke off and was ingested into the warm intake manifold. He flew his Long EZ for many years without carb heat, as I did in my 4-place prototype. However, just to be safe, he and I advise installing carburetor heat. If you are flying an Ellison, with or without carb heat, and suspect ice formation, working the mixture control lean and rich will rotate the fuel tube and probably cause the ice to break off from the trailing side. You also have the option of closing the throttle and opening it again, which causes the slide to wipe anything off from the fuel tube. Not to worry, guys! Uli Wolter, on his flight across the north Atlantic, encountered ice build up on his Cozy, and dropped down to a lower altitude to melt it. Another builder (can't quite bring up his name) also told us about ice build up, and dropped down to a lower altitude to melt it off. We were up high enough one time to see ice starting to form on the canopy, and dropped down to melt it off. You need only to take the same reasonable measures you would take in any GA single. Regards, Nat From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:18:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Spinner Bulkheads cracking Was said in a private message to me Subject: Re: [c-a] Re: COZY: Prop Extensions Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:21:18 -0400 > > >Depends on your engine mount but I have the Brock "Heavy" mount. I > Will, Sounds like great advice about buying the prop extension! Why do you refer to the engine mount as the Brock "Heavy" mount? Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com From: "Richard Goodwin" Subject: COZY: Custom Exhausts Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:25:50 +0100 Just went to order a Cosy exhaust from ACS. Shock horror the price has jumped from $500 to $689 some 40%. (excluding springs) I rang Custom AC who said they sell it for $615 including springs. Normally the ACS was cheaper due to bulk purchase. They are going to look into it for me. I will advise the result. Richard From: Militch@aol.com Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:28:22 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Custom Exhausts In a message dated 7/20/99 6:11:04 PM, richgoodwin@email.msn.com wrote: >Just went to order a Cosy exhaust from ACS. Shock horror the price has >jumped from $500 to $689 some 40%. (excluding springs) I rang Custom AC who >said they sell it for $615 including springs. Normally the ACS was cheaper >due to bulk purchase. They are going to look into it for me. I will advise >the result. Are bending templates available for the exhaust system's? It is a pain in the rear to weld up exhaust manifolds, but I have done them. If the price is heading towards $700 now, it will probably be even higher by the time I 'm ready to buy. You can probably figure on spending 20 or 30 hours of work to make a set, but it can be done. The trick is to weld them onto pre-cut, extra thick header plates, plan on having them warp, and finding a machine shop who is willing to mill or grind the flanges till they are flat and the right thickness. Not an elegant approach since it's very hard to hold the welded assembly for milling, but it works. Peter Militch Cozy Mark IV #740 Chapter 6 From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:49:06 -0400 Matt: Been there, done that. Hope this helps. I have a Cozy with a O320 and I used 1.25 inch x 1/8 aluminum angles. I now have 500 hrs+. I recently removed the engine and inspected the angles. There was absolutely no hole elongation or cracking. My experience is not too significant because engine mounts and hard points for the same are (should be) designed for the dynamic loads that occur with hard landings, turbulence, etc. I have heard of cracks being found in EZE angles, but we have no idea how many hard landings or other high g forces the airplane was subjected to. I am a engineer and I specialize in structural analysis using 3d analysis software. I have designed several engine mounts and I use 10g as the worst case load directly downward and a minimum 1.5 safety factor. The reason for this is that this is the way most airplanes are broken. (Hard Landings). I could look back at some of my work and tell you exactly what the shear, tension, and compression in the extreme fibers of the aluminum angle is at the worst case loading, but my experience tells me that this is not the answer to your question. So, The O320 weight is about 30# greater than the O235. This translates to 300# more downward engine weight on the during a 10g landing. This is still only 10% more and you will not be able to ignore a 10 g landing because there will be other damage. Given the above info; you should be able to answer your own question after you decide if you are willing to fly the airplane with a 10% less safety factor for the engine mount angles when subjected to worst case loading conditions. Jack Wilhelmson N711CZ > -----Original Message----- > From: Iflycozy@aol.com [SMTP:Iflycozy@aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 4:15 AM > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount > > For Cozy III place birds: > > Is the engine mount extrusion of 1/8" 2024 T-3 alum (EM12) acceptable for > the > larger engine of an 0-320, or should the extrusion be 1/4" thick? > > If the 1/8" thick alum is not acceptable, how should I proceed to exchange > it > to 1/4" thick alum extrusion? > > Matt Bunch > iflycozy@aol.com From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 16:04:15 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Cozy III Engine Mount On 07/20/99 23:14:35 you wrote: > > >If the 1/8" thick alum is not acceptable, how should I proceed to exchange it >to 1/4" thick alum extrusion? > >Matt Bunch >iflycozy@aol.com > > The Cosy Classic calls for 1/8" stainless steel angles. Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 07:18:43 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Oil Pressure - at cranking speed I think you may be miss reading the spec. I am dealing with an oil pressure indication problem myself right now, so I have been researching this. Normal oil pressure on parallel valve Lycomings is 65-75 psi. Low redline is 25psi. Oil Pressure is adjustable by adding or taking away washers under the spring in the valve which is mounted to the case right behind the #3 cylinder or the valve is adjustable by screwing it in and out (see figure 1-3 in the Lycoming Parts Catalog). By design, once the pump is putting out pressure above the set point of valve, the engine will run at a constant pressure. If your engine is putting out 45psi while cranking you are in good shape. Press on. Make sure when you fire it up the pressure comes up within 30 sec. At 19:36 7/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > >Here's another one for you experts; > >I have now filled my engines with oil, removed the plugs and cranked >them over for a period of time, to check for oil pressure, circulate >some to the camshaft, etc. I was pleased to see that both of them are >building oil pressure, but a little concerned that it is so much >pressure. > >Both of them, after maybe 30-40 seconds of cranking, are building as >much as 45 psi. I noted that the Lycoming spec is 25 for an engine at >idle. I'm nowhere near idle speed. Should I not worry about this? >Will a running engine maybe raise the pressure to a point where it drops >due to a valve or something? > >Thanks again everyone for all the help > >Harry Manvel >Defiant N2HM > > > \ >->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|- > / >-For details on sponsors of this list, copyrights, and how to remove >-yourself from this list, please visit: > > http://www.canard.com/ca-ending.html > > (c) 1997,1998, 1999 Canard Aviators. support@canard.com > / > -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > \ > > From: "H Andrews" Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration... Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:33:15 -0600 I had the same problem with a performance 3 blade prop on an 0 235. The vibration wasn't particularly subtle, however, and always caused me some concern. I would be interested in knowing whether I was right to be concerned or not. The vibration was most noticeable at about 2300 RPM as I was accelerating for takeoff. As the plane picked up speed the vibration would die out. I never noticed it while flying; only on the ground. Even with the cowling off it would still vibrate. As I recall there was also a lower rpm range at which it would also vibrate. I have since switched back to a two blade propeller, and the vibration has gone. I switched to the two blade propeller not because of the vibration, however, but because I wanted a coarser pitched propeller. Ed A. -----Original Message----- From: David Domeier To: canard-aviators@canard.com ; cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Monday, July 26, 1999 7:47 AM Subject: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration... >[The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > > > >Canard Drivers, > >After 20 plus hours on this engine, I am beginning to notice >things....like a buzzing, high frequency, type vibration between >1200-1400 rpm, and 2000-2150 rpm. > >It is not air frame shaking in nature, but noticeable, especially in >calm air, and it does change with throttle movement, hence my conclusion >it is an engine/prop induced vibration. The vibration is so subtle, I >don't feel it in rough air. > >I am running a Performance 3 blade on a 6" extension all hooked up to an >0-360. > >Has anyone experienced anything like this? Also, does anyone know how >Mark Landoll's harmonic dampener works? Is it a fluid dampening device >or what? > >dd > > > \ >->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-|- > / >-For details on sponsors of this list, copyrights, and how to remove >-yourself from this list, please visit: > > http://www.canard.com/ca-ending.html > > (c) 1997,1998, 1999 Canard Aviators. support@canard.com > / > -|-<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > \ > Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Stevens Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration... Dave: You might want to consider dynamic balancing. I do not know where you base out of but we have a couple shops down here (WJF, VNY) that do this type of balancing. A friend of mine had his BD-4 done as part of one of out Chapter meetings and noticed a real improvement. Since then two local RVs, two Thorp T-18s have done it and recommend it. They also look for and map RPM bands that you should not operate in. I will have my EZ done when I get it up and running again. Carl N223MM On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, David Domeier wrote: > [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] > Canard Drivers, > > After 20 plus hours on this engine, I am beginning to notice > things....like a buzzing, high frequency, type vibration between > 1200-1400 rpm, and 2000-2150 rpm. snip ... Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:18:19 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] Harmonic Engine Vibration... Carl, Thanks to you and about a dozen other guys for info on the phenomena. It is a common occurrence and some are going with harmonic balancing, some with Landoll, and some are living with it. I think the first thing I need do is check the prop and extension for security - I've had it off and on about 6 times recently - I think it is OK. Then I will check some local shops for balancing, and them maybe consider the Landoll, but I sure do not need the extra weight that far aft. I'm carrying 26 pounds of ballast for solo as it is. dd From: "Wilhelmson, Jack" Subject: RE: COZY: mufflers on airplanes? Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:52:10 -0400 John: Ok, you ask for it: There are mufflers on airplanes, Many socialistic countries mandate it. This becomes a political thread very quickly. But as a practical thing, my airplane makes a lot less noise than a military plane, a commercial jet, or for that matter a heavy diesel truck. So why should it be regulated to produce a hundred times less noise than they do? That's what the socialistic countries do. >From a purely technical thing. A prop airplane's noise level cannot appreciable be reduced by mufflers on the engine. The prop is the noise maker. Listen to a turbo prop fly over sometime. It is possible to reduce the noise of a light prop type aircraft but it is not a simple task. The polish Wilga is a good example of this. It has two large mufflers hanging under it and a large slow turning prop that keeps the prop tips away from the speed of sound. It is very quiet and is used for banner towing. In any case, anything that reduces the taleoff power of a airplane becomes a safety issue. If you want a practical no cost solution to the noise inside of your own airplane just fly at lower speeds. My Cozy is very quiet at speeds below 150 mph. Jack Wilhelmson N 711CZ > -----Original Message----- > From: John Slade [SMTP:rjslade@bellsouth.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 2:55 PM > To: Cozy Builders Mailing List > Subject: COZY: mufflers on airplanes? > > OK, while the lucky ones are busy at OSH, here's a question to give the > rest > of us some entertainment..... > > I've been wondering lately about something that is probably quite obvious. > In all my years of aviation I've never seen a muffler on an airplane. Why > is > that? I can take the muffler off my car and if I balance the exhaust > system > I might get better fuel economy and performance, but the noise would be > intolerable. Sure there would be plenty of problems with a muffler on an > airplane such as space, cooling, aerodynamics, performance, economy etc. > etc., but reducing the noise level by 50% or more would be worth a LOT of > trouble. So what am I missing? Why are there no mufflers on airplanes? > > When you're all done laughing, let me know. > John Slade > Cozy #757 (chap 13 almost done) > > http://kgarden.com/cozy > Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:27:19 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: mufflers on airplanes? John, re "In all my years of aviation I've never seen a muffler on an airplane. Why is that?" Probably 'cause you are a pilot and not a mechanic. Most are under the cowling. Lot's of airplanes have mufflers. The Cessna 152 muffler costs $329.50 and the shroud $179.50. The Pipers all have mufflers, including the J3 through J18. Why aren't they on our airplanes? Probably 'cause they are dead weight, reduce HP, and could come off and wipe out the prop. dd From: DougSheph@aol.com Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:22:21 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise I've wondered about the lack of mufflers on airplanes as well, and I've gotten a lot of the same responses we've seen posted. Some random thoughts of mine on the subject: 1) Of course they make the plane heavier. But 'dead' weight? Not if they're doing a job I want done. 2) I'm willing to believe that they won't make the cockpit much quieter, especially in a pusher where the exhaust and much of the noise is expelled behind the plane in a 200 mph slipstream. But I DO believe that they will reduce the noise level on the ground considerably. I live a couple of miles from a GA airport, and there's quite a difference in noise level between airplanes, with the homebuilts being some of the loudest. I think good citizenship counts for something. 3) I'm not like I want to make a stealthy plane or anything -- a modest reduction in noise level is all I would ever want. I can't believe a fair reduction in noise level would cost more than 5 horsepower or 20 pounds. A couple of baffles in a widened portion of the exhaust stack, and maybe some packing, would probably make me quite happy. Mufflers are one of those things where 20% of the medicine gives 80% of the cure. Granted, those 5 horsepower and 20 pounds are very dear, but every design is a series of tradeoffs and the manufacturer (you) has to decide where his priorities are. 4) Whether even a modest muffler would fit inside a tight cowl, or mess up the airflow inside the cowl, would have to be addressed. 5) It's true, propeller noise can be at least as much of a problem as engine noise. But as someone pointed out, there are quieter designs for propellers as well. Someone mentions in the archives that the Prince design, with its funny tips, is very quiet (although quite expensive as well). 6) Since none of this is an issue at altitude anyway, throttling back and avoiding low-altitude flight is probably at least as effective as mufflers, except at takeoff. And I don't think this is off subject at all. I think this is a good forum for this kind of discussion. What do you think, Marc? Doug Shepherd From: Todd Carrico Subject: RE: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:56:34 -0700 Tony Bengilis's (did I spell it right?) book had some interesting ideas about this very thing. Some of them were not at all heavy, or cumbersome. I have heard some racing types swear by a contraption similar to a glass pack, but instead of fiberglass it is packed with that really thick stainless steel wool used for cleaning dishes. It is supposed to last longer than the fiberglass, but does the job just as well. I imagine these AC do not have mufflers due the fact that they are not needed for safe flight. It is one less thing to buy, build, or break. tc From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:07:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Orifice fittings On 08/03/99 16:10:20 you wrote: > >The plans call out for "orifice fittings" for the fuel and oil pressure >sensors. I don't see these fittings listed in either the Wicks or Aircraft >Spruce catalogs. Am I missing them somewhere? Thanks for any help. > >Paul Stowitts >Cozy Mark IV #200 > > The orfices are to dampen pulses, and in some instances serve to minimize the leak if the hose going to the sensor would leak. Sensors are never mounted on engines, but the airframe to minimize vibration damage. The manifold pressure also gets a orfice. Try a certified aircraft parts or engine parts like El Reno Aviation, since they are airframe specific, but most any will do. Or make your own by threading a solid corrosion resistant (SS or brass) screw, cut flush, peen to never come out, and drill, kind od small, maybe less than 1/16" From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:36:57 -0000 ---------- > From: DougSheph@aol.com > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: Re: COZY: Re: mufflers and noise > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 6:22 PM > > Builders, Many countries require mufflers on all GA airplanes, including the Cozy. I don't believe there is room inside the cowling for mufflers, so installing them would involve some major modifications. We did modify a previous exhaust pipe design with baffles inside, and I know of at least one instance where the baffles came out and did a job on the prop. We get more horsepower without a muffler, and hope that all of you will observe good noise abatement practices so we do not have new regulations requiring everyone to install mufflers. Nat Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:46:45 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Orifice fittings Paul, re "The plans call out for "orifice fittings" for the fuel and oil pressure sensors." The oil pressure line fitting at the engine should have a tiny hole so as to preclude a major oil leak if the sensor comes apart (never heard of that happening, but I'm sure it has). I had a guy weld the fitting shut and then drilled a tiny hole through the weld. I don't have an "orifice fitting" for the fuel pressure sensor. The pressure is much lower and I don't think it is necessary. dd From: "Reid Siebert" Subject: Re: COZY: Engine, Mag drive gears. Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:22:11 -0500 I too have installed a couple of sets of Electroair systems. I get my spare mag drive gears, and mag hold-down clips from my engine builder, Larry Conway, at Aircraft Engine Resources, in Brighton, Iowa. His email address is: aircrafteng@lisco.com. He often has new, and used mag parts, on hand. You don't have to know the part numbers, he knows what you are talking about. He has installed a few of Jeff's systems, too. Tell him Reid sent you. Reid Siebert Reid@Siebert.com From: Lee810@aol.com Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:33:58 EDT Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Ellison TBI/auto fuel In a message dated 8/6/99 5:57:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time, PNGUNN@aol.com writes: > Another difference in Avgas and auto gas is the composition. Avgas is > made mostly from Toluene, and Alkalate. Both of these are very clean > and very stable. Auto gas is made from a combination of as many as 5 > to 10 different components. I once ran a sample of avgas and auto gas through a gas chromatograph and was surprised to see the difference in the number of compounds in the auto fuel vs. the avgas. The avgas showed only two peaks whereas the auto fuel had many. I didn't have a mass spectrometer to identify the compounds, but I'll take Patrick's word for it contains the compounds listed above. I used to use auto gas in my Colt and it worked fine, but it had a gravity feed system and metal tanks. Now that I'm flying a LongEZ, the incentive to use auto fuel has diminished. Also, in Colorado, the difference in price between auto gas and avgas isn't as significant as it was when I lived on the east coast. They also mandate alcohol in the fuel around here in the winter. Lee Devlin Greeley, CO From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 10:25:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Noise cancel headset?? Does anyone know a clew as to when the rings are properly seated? Watch the oil consumption, the first hour or 2 it is likely to be high, maybe even as high as a quart an hour. Within a few hours it should settle to say 8 hour/qt., some take much longer, and some get much better than that up to 20 hrs/qt. but I wonder if those are getting correct lube to the compression rings. If within say about 5 hours your not above 5 hours/qt. I would seriously consider pulling the cylinders, honing and new rings. Probably send them beck to the shop that originally done them under warranty. My cylinders are Nuchrome by Harrison Engine in Laporte, In. They usually around 8 hours/qt. I pulled the cylinders a while ago to replace the piston pins (Superior proposed AD, they were badly pitted and not that old), honed the cyl. myself, since I have been running 5 hours/qt. hoping it would get better, but has been stable, would like better, but living with for the time. Change from mineral oil after the oil consumption settles on some number. Fly normally when oil consumption gets to a quart in 6 or 8 hours. In the mean time go like H..., watch cylinder head temps, hope you have all cylinders. From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com Subject: Re: COZY: Re: [c-a] Prop Bolts Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 12:59:58 -0000 DON'T DON'T DON'T DON'T Ever recut the threads on a aircraft bolt !!!!! the bottom of the thread is round and if you run a die onto it for any reason you cut the round out or at the very least groove the bottom. If you have done this on any of your bolts, that hold anything IMPORTANT on, throw the bolt away. Also don't recut a nut. this is for the same reason. Aircraft bolts are expensive but worth every penny. Brian Dempster A&P IA -----Original Message----- From: Neil Clayton To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 4:26 PM Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] Prop Bolts >>Edward Masterson wrote; I ran a die over these bolts to clean up the >threads. I then wondered if this was a smart thing to do, would doing this >decrease their strength and make them not airworthy? > >From my old metallurgy days... > >High tensile bolts have their threads rolled, not cut, so that the grain >flows into the thread "peaks" making them an integral part of the shaft and >more resistant to shear. The threads are then heat-treated to relieve >manufacturing stresses. Running a die down them to just clean out the >thread V's of dirt, etc is OK, but if you cut metal you risk affecting the >design shape & strength of the bolt. I have personal rule to always re-new >critical bolts after a maintenance removal. > >Also torquing correctly is very important. Under-torquing means the bolts >isn't working as hard as it can, loading the others more and risks >loosening; over-torquing risks taking the steel beyond it's Hooke's Law >limit into the plastic region and causing permanent deformation, probably >necking at the end of the threaded portion - another good reason to re-new >the bolts if you're not sure of the loading they've been subjected to. > >Along with wing mount bolts and engine mounts, prop bolts are about as >critical as an application gets. Wrap them in cotton wool till you're ready >to use them (figuratively speaking) and treat them like you would a close >family member!!! > >Neil C. > From: "Mike Davis" Subject: COZY: prop torque Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:31:51 -0500 The thread on torque brings up another point to ponder. Does everybody out there lubricate their prop bolts with pure bee's wax prior to installation? I find that without it the torque was not accurate due to the friction between the bolt and wood. A cheap source of wax is from the hardware store. The seal that is used to install your bathroom throne is made of bee's wax. Mike Cozy N141MD From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:23:46 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque BOlt torque does vary, with the lubricant. BUT the wrong lubricant can result in over stressing, or not tightening the bolt. Other factors are the microfinish of the threads, the under nut or head, washer material, friction of the hole, etc. The object of using some method of measuring tightness is the actual tension (pulling) force in the bolt. I'm not going to get into bolt size selection here, which includes fatique, impact, and other issues. Current technology of fasteners is "Turn of the NUT". For this, the nut(s) are brought snug, where the clamped parts, are just snug against each other, and basically the bolt is under no load (actually very low, ignorable, relative to full load). Then the nut is turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 of a revolution. The angle is determined by the length/size/thread-pitch of the bolt. After the nut is turned the required angle, the bolt has been stretched a distance that is close to the yield point (where further stretching will result in permenant length change). This method doesn't care (within reason) what the lubricant or thread condition is. IF use of torque wrench is desired, then the nut & bolt should be assembled in a load measuring device, and the torque required to bring the bolt to its required loading noted. This is only good for that production batch of nuts and bolts, lubricant, etc. It might be that for certain specification (AN or NAS) fasteners that the variables are controled close enough that torque can be used, but I would be careful of using special lubricants. Also the drag of a locking nut, when not tight should be added to the torque required. Among those going to turn of the nut method, include the American Institute of Steel Construction, and Sensenich wood propeller Co. From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:38:30 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque In a message dated 9/12/99 8:27:19 AM Central Daylight Time, cdenk@ix.netcom.com writes: << Then the nut is turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 of a revolution. >> Will this result in the 250 to 300 inch pounds most multi-laminate props are using? Steve From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:24:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque On 09/12/99 10:38:30 you wrote: > >In a message dated 9/12/99 8:27:19 AM Central Daylight Time, >cdenk@ix.netcom.com writes: > ><< Then the nut is > turned a specified angle, for structural steel bolts, a common amount is 2/3 >of a revolution. >> > >Will this result in the 250 to 300 inch pounds most multi-laminate props are >using? >Steve > Not necessarily, in fact probably not. The amount must be calculated taking into account both the bolt stretch, and the clamped material crush, that probably not the correct word, since it implies damage, elastic squeezing or compression would be better wording, but less layman talk. Sensenich includes directions for "Turn of the Bolt (Nut)" with torque values as a check. I just couldn't find it while on line. The table, includes variables for wood thickness, bolt length, bolt diameter. Thread pitch, and other details are assumed a standard. From: "John Stricker" Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:30:36 -0500 Steve, The "turn of the nut" method Carl is talking about (a new term for me, BTW, and I've used this for over 20 years in certain instances) is used on highly stressed bolts that are called "torque to yield" bolts. Most typically, these bolts are NOT re-used. They are becoming more common, as Carl pointed out, as the output per displacement of engines is getting higher and the loads on them are going up as well. Common places to find torque to yield are on connecting rod caps (Caterpillar has used them for a long, long time) and head bolts, particularly on engines with different metals in the heads and blocks (aluminum head on cast iron block). If Sensenich is using this, I'd bet they're recommending only one use on a bolt and then throw it away. What Carl didn't mention though, was you still need your torque wrench. For example, on a hypothetical engine with TTY head bolts, you torque the head in a specific pattern, evenly, to a given (lower) setting. Say 50 ft/lbs instead of 85. When everything is snugged down at 50, you go another so many degrees rotation on the bolt. This too can vary, and you can get a gauge from Snap-On and others that goes on your ratchet marked in degrees to determine just where you're at. Simply, what you're doing with this method is putting an actual dimension on bolt stretch. The lower torque reading is what the engineers have determined is clamped tight, with "0" slop in the fastened assembly. Then, given the fact that we can't get it any closer together, but the threads will tighten up regardless, we know precisely how much we're stretching the bolt. Clear as mud?? It's theoretically a more accurate indicator of bolt stretch and typically an unnecessary one UNLESS you're using torque to yield bolts. While you could use this method, I wouldn't. First off, you need to know how much stretch the engineers want from the bolt. We don't know that. All we know is a torque spec. With enough trial and error, we could probably figure it out, but for most all applications, it's not necessary because we aren't using TTY bolts. The one exception I can see might be on a wooden prop hub, where an exact amount of clamping force well below that of the yield of the bolt is desired. Just remember that you still need to use beeswax, anti-seize, oil, or whatever the specific part calls out for on assembly because you need to get your initial torque reading before making the final turn accurate. John Stricker jstricke@russellks.net "I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain just to become a vegetarian" From ???@??? Mon Sep 13 07:55:37 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id SAA24590 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA31138 for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:54 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.comFrom ???@??? Mon Sep 13 07:55:37 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id SAA24590 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:31:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA31138 for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:54 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA31133 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 17:57:49 -0400 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA11357; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:58:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:58:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ely-oh4-08.ix.netcom.com(206.216.59.136) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma011243; Sun Sep 12 16:57:48 1999 To: jstricke@odsys.net To: cozy_builders@canard.com Message-Id: <1999912175438141@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: COZY: prop torque X-Mailer: Netcomplete v4.0, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com X-UIDL: bc69caba1bd83a51baf13a53a4d9602e To clarify on John Stricker's well appreciated comments: The "turn of the nut" (This term is per the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), which is included in nearly every building code in the world) method as I was referring to is for bolts not stressed highly, but well within there eleastic range. This method can also be used for bolts that are stressed out of there elastic range where they will not return to their original length. These highly stressed bolts must not be reused. A more common application that must not be reused include Ford Escort 1.9L head bolts, and Dana 44 four wheel drive front axle ring gear bolts. All bolts that are to be tightened to some specification will have a rotation angle and/or torque specified. In all cases the tightening specifications is an engineering decision, whether the bolt is highly stressed or not. Yes, there are ones that are based on someone's judgement, but typically, its more a cookbook approach. One selects a bolt size from a table, or some elementary formula, such as the AISC manual, or F.A.A. approved manual. Then another part of the manual defines the required tightening criteria. Someone learned person, usually an engineer that understands all the issues involved will define the tightening procedure to be followed. The reference to "First off, you need to know how much stretch the engineers want from the bolt. We don't know that." -- For aircraft bolts, there are well defined tables of required torque, that have been the same for many years, they just haven't caught up with the technology yet. When Ford Motor builds up an engine they monitor both torque and rotation for the entire tightening sequence. The allowables have been determined from much engineering and testing. In Sensenich's procedure, the bolts are NOT highly stressed, they, and the wood hub, are well within the elastic limits. Since the bolts are not being subject to deforming forces, and fatigue (A whole new subject) is not an issue, and if the threads are in good shape with no gaulling, run freely (pre-assembly inspection), etc. there is no reason these bolts can't be reused. Sensenich's procedure for their wood propellers does not mention bolt replacement. The majority of the deformation is in the wood, which is not the usual with metal sandwiches. From: Militch@aol.com Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 09:00:25 EDT Subject: Re: Re: COZY: prop torque In a message dated 9/12/99 3:33:36 PM, jstricke@odsys.net wrote: >The "turn of the nut" method Carl is talking about (a new term for me, BTW, >and I've used this for over 20 years in certain instances) is used on highly >stressed bolts that are called "torque to yield" bolts. > >Most typically, these bolts are NOT re-used. They are becoming more common, >as Carl pointed out, as the output per displacement of engines is getting >higher and the loads on them are going up as well. Common places to find I had to replace the head gasket in my wife's 86 BMW last year. The head bolt tightening spec was 20 ft. lbs + 90 degrees + 90 degrees. You can only use the bolts once. I used my torque wrench to make the turns just to see what that translated to in actual torque. It varied from about 105 ft. lbs. to 125 ft. lbs. Regards, Peter Militch Cozy Mk IV #740 Chapter 6. From: "DougSheph" Subject: COZY: Bolt-tightening procedures Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:52:11 -0700 I'm an electronics engineer, not a mechanical engineer, but the manufacturers of the high-strength, superalloy con rod bolts I've used in high-performance motorcycle engines recommend the following procedure: 1) Lubricate the threads. A dry lube such as silicone or Teflon spray-on is preferred, but WD-40 or even engine oil can be used in a pinch (sorry!). Unlubricated threads result in artificially high torque readings. 2) Measure the length of each bolt accurately (a micrometer is necessary). 3) Tighten the pair of bolts slowly and evenly, monitoring both bolt stretch and torque. Tighten to the specified amount of bolt stretch but DISCARD any bolt which reaches the specified stretch before the specified torque is reached (never happened to me). Since the elasticity of the alloy is well-known, the specified stretch results in the correct amount of clamping force being applied; bolts which reach the specified stretch prematurely are either made of substandard alloy or have weakening inclusions. 4) NEVER reuse these bolts or the nuts that come with them, even for test assembly at lowered torque! Save the old hardware to do the test assembly of the engine. I would imagine the same would apply to any highly-stressed bolt in a critical application. Of course, the method Carl describes, of measuring the nut rotation, is equivalent to measuring the bolt stretch -- thread rotation with a given pitch and bolt length will be proportional to bolt stretch, in the absence of thread deformation. Additionally, this method can be used in a blind hole, where you can't access the end of the bolt to measure stretch directly. And as Carl points out, these procedures are only useful when clamping rigid metal pieces together. Follow the recommendations of your prop manufacturer carefully to achieve adequate clamping force without crushing the wood. Doug Shepherd From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: COZY: exhaust systems Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:56:43 -0500 Builders, I talked to Clinton Anderson today and he told me that he is making "inside the cowling" exhaust systems for Varieze and Long EZ builders. They are curved so that they exit the cowling at the same outlet as the engine cooling air. We don't know if they would fit a Cozy cowling, but for sure, one would have to remove the separate exits we now have for the pipes. It is now known whether these pipes would have any advantage either in speed or in engine cooling over the present design. I don't know whether I will evaluate them if there is no definite advantage, because it would mean modifying my cowling, and a duplicate expense for a new set of pipes. But if anyone is interested in trying a set, everyone would be interested in the results. Incidently, Custom Aircraft's new phone number is different than what is in the newsletter. It is: (800)561-1901 or (619)561-5757 and web page www.customaircraft.com Regards, Nat Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:25:39 -0400 From: Carlos Vicente Leon Subject: COZY: Anyone heard from the Leon's ? We apologise to the Cozy group for not reporting our arrival, specially Nat and Shirley, who were ever so helpful to us durring the whole of Oshkosh. When we got ready to fly back we were so anxious that we forgot to say goodbye. This is the story of our trip back as we told it to Sports Aviation: "We took off on Sunday August 1st from Runway 18 in Oshkosh. This was our scheduled day with the FAA, you know we needed a special flight authorization from the FAA limited to an itinerary. The itinerary included dates and stop airports. In our 4.5 hour trip we had splendid weather, even when we landed in Rome, Georgia. We had a two hour rest with nap and lunch and took off for Fort Lauderdale Executive airport where we arrived at 5pm local time. Our friend picked us up and took us to a crab house dinner. On monday we stayed at Miami to rest for the tuesday flight. On tuesday we took off from FXE at 6am for Puerto Plata but after about 45 minutes flying (aprox. 100 miles out) the left engine started missing until it stopped completely. We were flying 100 miles into the Sea. After the left engine quit completely we did a turn to the nearest airport which was the island of Bimini. From 9500 feet we spent a lot of time trying to start the engine, descending to 5000 feet in the mean time (while trying to start the engine the propeller is engaged causing a lot of drag). We realized then that no engine start was possible and reduced speed to 80 kts so that oil press pressure would drop an disconnect the idler pulley, this causes disengagement of the propeller from the engine. We flew like this for 20 minutes or so arriving at Bimini at 5000 feet. We then told Miami control that we were landing safely at Bimini. We did not declare an Emergency but had told them that we had enginge trouble so they asked us to call once we landed. After we landed we took our coulings off to and found a dead Ignition Coil. Our plane has a single electronic ignition system for each engine. A broken Coil is a dead engine. Our friend in Miami sent us a part on a charter plane that was flying from FXE but the coil we received did not work. In desperation we disassembled the old coil (it is the oil filled type that you can take apart) and found a broken connection inside. It had broken due to vibration from the engine. We made the mistake of installing the coil on the engine itself. It should be installed on the firewall like we have on our right engine...there is no vibration there. After we repaired the coil we took off and flew to the nearest civilization which was Nassau. There we spent the night on Tuesday. On Wednesday morning we went out shopping and bought a brand new coil at the local Nissan dealer. We installed it and flew to Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic). We skipped all the bad cells of thunderstorms and bad weather on the way and landed at Santo Domingo at 5pm (after almost 5 hours). Our surpprise was to find a bunch of EAA guys that flew Chinnuc Helicopters for the Alabama CO F (military). They were based there at the airport, right next to were our cozy was parked. They offered accomodation and gave us some survival food. We were really grateful although we could not accept to sleep there because our friend picked us up at the airport. To our friend's disappointment we took off on Thursday morning for Valencia (we were so eager to get there after two day's delay) and arrived at Valencia at 1pm for the usual welcoming." Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:59:28 +0200 From: Rego and Noleen Burger Subject: COZY: Exhaust position Hello folks, With Ref: to a std. Cozy! I would like the measurement of the distance between the exhaust pipe and the prop please. As I am busy with my own home made cowling and would like to trim the Exhaust pipe on my auto conversion system to a similar clearance.( to keep hot gases from prop balde ) Thks in advance. -- Rego Burger CZ4#139 South Africa Web:http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm Work e-mail, mailto:burgerr@telkom.co.za From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 10:05:00 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Exhaust position With a 4 cylinder engine and no more than 2 cylinders per exhaust pipe, 3" from end of pipe to prop seems to work. BUT at Rough River flyin, a Suburu, with one pipe exiting inside the cowling aft opening, there was evidence of prop glue line damage. The owner had recently moved the exhaust to below the cowl opening and probably 5" from the prop. Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 18:47:50 -0700 From: marcna Subject: Re: COZY: Another Cozy IV takes to the air Hi Gregg, We used the plans design cooling. I think that changing to the armpit type will be an improvment, but not at this time. If you are still building though, leave it as the plans call for. When you change anything it takes soooo much longer. If you want to finish, go by the plans. I made many small changes during the building process (power nose and air gear, power air brake, nose light, matco brakes, non-ellison carb, etc, etc, etc.). God knows how we finished. This is a very, very long and hard process. Only 15% of builders finish their projects, only 15%. Don't make the process harder than it is. Nat makes a good point - build to plans first, then make the changes. Good Luck Marc Parmelee N20MN Gregg Perry wrote: > Marc, > > Sorry I didn't clarify the "cooling question" fully. From what I've been > reading/hearing, some folks are using the NACA scoop per plans, some are using > "downdraft" cooling with scoops, some are using smaller NACA scoops on the > upper surface of the cowling, some are using scoops beneath the cowling. > YIKES! Too many choices. Since you mentioned that all your temps were in good > order, I wanted to see which type of cooling system you had gone with. Hope > this helps... > > Gregg Perry