From: extensionsystems@mindspring.com Subject: COZY: Hollow Core Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 09:54:26 -0000 I have a friend that has another (non Cozy) project going and I was hoping that someone in this group could lead us in the direction of learning how to make hollow core products. 1. How is the core formed and attached to the outer skin. 2. What makes a good core. Any Internet sites that you could lead us to would be a great help. Any books on the subject would be of great help. Any first hand experience would be GREAT. Thanks Brian Dempster Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:00:13 -0500 From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: COZY: Hollow Core extensionsystems@mindspring.com wrote: > I have a friend that has another (non Cozy) project going and I was hoping > that someone in this group could lead us in the direction of learning how to > make hollow core products. > I don't get it: Hollow core? You can build something over a foam core and than dissolve the core with solvent. If that's the target there are few ways to do it. Let us know more exactly what are you goals and the nature of the "thing" you are building. Regards Bulent From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 19:45:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Hollow Core was said Much caution is urged here. On many canard pushers (note I am being more or less generic) the foam core is a MAJOR structural component. The function is to provide lateral (perpendicular) to the plane of the glass support. Both in compression , and example being take a 1/4" wood dowel 36" long. Set one end on the floor, and use a finger to load the dowel, noting the force before it bows (buckles). THen take your other hand's fingers and gently at mid height provide enough force to prevent bowing at the middle. The amount of side force is small, but the end force is about 4 times greater. In tension on curved surfaces the foam prevents the glass from assuming a flat surface. Although the foam is relatively weak when compared to wood, steel, or aluminum, its strength is predictable and consistant. The functionality is from large areas that are loaded. Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:43:51 +0200 From: ernie de goveia Subject: COZY: Hollow Cores The Europa,a kitplane, designed and built by Ivan Shaw, uses hollow foam cores, or,more correctly, cores with two circular cutouts thru the length of the cores. Incidently. Shaw was also responsible for fitting two engine to a long ez, one in each wing. Since wing foam has a density of 2lb/ cu ft. I doubt the weight saving of two such cutout is significant. It is more likely a manufacturing thing. Shaw would have considered that in the design of his wing, doing something similar in a cosy wing would have serious design implications not intended by Bert or Nat, would also extent the already long wing building proceedure. See www.ez.org go to canard pusher reprint then to the bottom where you will find Full core composite sandwich wing . For more info. FWIW Ernie in Cape Town Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 13:29:15 -0400 From: "Johnson, Phillip" Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 14 Carl Denk Wrote> snip> was said Not sure that is a good idea, I think the console is a floor stiffener, and helps distribute the load from a vertical impact to the airframe. End< I've seen a lot of remarks such as this one over the growth of this group and my comments are not pointed at Carl. I have used Carl only to illustrate a point: When Burt Rutan designed the Vari Eze and Long Eze he did this with the aid of a hand held Texas calculator. Personal computers were in their infancy and only available to the select few. Most engineers were not capable of writing the software necessary to complete finite element analysis and little or no application software existed from which they could work. The engineering consisted of computing the main controlling factors to the best of their ability, add a few good back up concepts that surly could not hurt and that was the design. Adding elements such as centre consoles added strength but I would bet it was not included in the design calculations as are most of the elements within the design. Perhaps Nat could jump in here in telling us how much analysis he did in the design of the MK IV. My guess is that he did a lot of eyeball engineering and incorporated designs that worked from other working designs such as the Defiant. There is nothing wrong with this but it does suggest that in many areas we are getting "all bent up out of shape" for things that don't matter. There are clearly areas that are highly stressed and it's my guess is that both Burt and Nat concentrated their analytical talents in these arenas leaving the rest to the MK 1 eyeball. It is my belief that a large part of the internal structure is there to benefit the human factors aspect of the design and even though they may add to the strength they were not designed with the overall structure in mind. In example of the above statement. Look at the lay-up schedule for the wing skins. The UNI plies lie with their fibres running corner to corner for the foam blocks from which the wing cores were cut. Burt obviously found that this angle was close enough for what he wanted from his design, and that this gave some reference point for the builder. I do not believe that this had to be exactly this value nor do I believe that the torsional stiffness was ever calculated other than by a very rudimentary method. The result worked and there became no reason to change it until stitched TRIAX became available and this gave a 45 degree angle. Notice that the AeroCanards and the Velocities are not falling out of the sky with torsional failures. Having made this statement it is not fitting that a builder should remove all of the internal structure, nor change his wing lay-up,, but he should recognize that there is some room to manoeuver without expecting hell and damn nation for removing the centre console, cutting out bigger leg holes etc. Phillip Johnson From: "Rick Maddy" Subject: COZY: Lessons Learned Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 22:39:19 -0600 To All, Edmond Richards' last posting made an excellent point. As a newbie in the pre-build stages I am very interested in all the potential gotchas. This latest about vacuum lines is a perfect example. I am requesting that each and everyone of you send me items to be compiled into a "lessons learned" section for my new web site. I will gladly compile these and make them available. Please refer to what chapters are effected. For example, the vacuum line stuff is addressed in chapter X but should really be dealt with in chapter Y. I am also interested in issues you dealt with while installing "approved modifications" such as power nose lifts and the like. Anything a lot of people are doing but aren't explicitly described in the plans. I will admit I have only read through chapter 7 so I am pretty ignorant of the later steps. But from reading the archives, FAQ, and this mailing list the last month, it appears there are some possible areas for minor improvement. By compiling all these bits of wisdom we new builders can avoid some of the trouble the "older" builders have gone through. Hopefully all this will find its way into revision 3 of the Cozy Mark IV plans. One last thing - to help me out please put the word "Lesson" as the start of your subject when you send me these items. It will help me to sort through my mail easier. Thanks, Rick Maddy (cozy@maddyhome.com) Cozy Mk IV #0824: Pre-build (www.maddyhome.com/cozy) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 08:49:34 -0400 From: "L. Wayne Hicks" Subject: Re: COZY: Lessons Learned Rick Maddy wrote: > I am requesting that each and everyone of you send me items to be compiled > into a "lessons learned" section for my new web site. --------> Read the archives and FAQ's for almost every lesson learned to date. My personal lessons learned are posted on my website in the individual chapters. You can find it at: http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/falls/2027 Wayne Hicks Cozy IV #678 Chapter 18 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 19:24:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Lessons Learned Was said Highly recommend reading to the end very early in the process. I made a copy of the instructions for at work, and with feet on the desk and sandwich in hand read. DOn't have to remember every detail, but understand the whole process. Also did like someone recently commented, yellow highlighter of every instruction when complete to your satisfaction. Don't want to burst any bubbles, but I have been answering for several years, have saved the more lengthy comments, which on request, if can't find in the archives, I dig out and send. To dig out all items is a major undertaking beyond my time limitations. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:13:24 -0500 ---------- > From: Rich Carrico > To: Cozy builders > Subject: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy > Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:35 AM > > Is it easier to transition to flying the Cozy from a high wing aircraft such > as the Cessna 172 or a low wing such as the Piper Archer II or the Piper > Cherokee 180? Rich, There isn't any other airplane that flies exactly like a Cozy. Maybe the closest is a Long EZ, but it isn't dual, and you aren't likely to find someone willing to let you fly their Long EZ from the front seat. There might be several reasons for suggesting that someone have recent experience in more than one airplane. The first, of course, is to become comfortable checking out and transitioning to other airplanes. The second, of course, it to make sure you have recent experience flying solo. My recommendation is to check out in every aircraft you can rent, and do this after your taxi tests and after your FAA approval. Before I flew my Varieze, I hadn't flown for almost 25 years. I took two hours of instruction, and then went up with an instructor in a Cessna 150, and told him I wanted to do everything WRONG! This was just simply to get used to the unusual, so it didn't unnerve me. Hope this helps. Best regards, Nat > From: "Rich Carrico" Subject: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:35:55 -0500 Is it easier to transition to flying the Cozy from a high wing aircraft such as the Cessna 172 or a low wing such as the Piper Archer II or the Piper Cherokee 180? I have access to them from my local aircraft rental company, but am not checked out in the Archer or the Cherokee yet. Which one would be the best to prepare me to fly the Cozy. Rich Carrico From: SWrightFLY@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 11:08:58 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy In a message dated 10/27/99 9:40:00 AM Central Daylight Time, rcarrico@printerspecialists.com writes: << Which one would be the best to prepare me to fly the Cozy. >> Both including a J-3, Citabria, etc., ..........the main point is that you can go from one type to another type and make the transition safely. In the same day go fly a cub then a cessna then a high performance "anything" and then go fly the cub again.......then you can go fly an EZ and should have no problem. It's different like the cub is different from the cessna. Strongly recommend you get an experienced EZ pilot to test fly your bird first and give you a check-out in a Cozy. Where are you located? Steve Wright Wright Aircraft Works LLC: Electric Nose-Lift for EZEs From: "james leturgey" Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 08:25:13 PDT Hi Rich: To answer your question--neither in my opinion. Both have steerable nose gear, (cozy is full castering). Some benefit might be gained from some tail dragger time, but not necessary. Canard aircraft takeoff differently, and land different than planes that have tail feathers. Other than that flight is very much the same. The only way to "get the feel" is to get some real time at the controls of a canard type. It took me about a ten to twelve takeoffs and landings in Longeze with the owner/pilot in the back seat coaching and I was very comfortable for my first flight last year. Only my opinion. Good Luck Jim (Longeze 537JL) >From: "Rich Carrico" >Reply-To: "Rich Carrico" >To: "Cozy builders" >Subject: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy >Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:35:55 -0500 > >Is it easier to transition to flying the Cozy from a high wing aircraft >such >as the Cessna 172 or a low wing such as the Piper Archer II or the Piper >Cherokee 180? I have access to them from my local aircraft rental company, >but am not checked out in the Archer or the Cherokee yet. Which one would >be the best to prepare me to fly the Cozy. > >Rich Carrico > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 12:06:39 -0400 From: Paul Krasa Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy snip I agree with everything Steve said. If you can get some right seat time in a Cozy. This will give you a sense of the handling dynamics of the airplane. If not a canard then some other high performance homebuilt. I had flown a Lancair 320, a Lancair IVP, a Glasair 1, and a Glasair III prior to my Long EZ. These airplanes gave me more of a sense of what to expect. I did my first flight without a canard checkout. Conceptually, I did exactly what Steve describes over a couple of day period. What I found was nose wheel lift offs are mandatory to getting a feel for control dynamics before takeoff. Once you can "fly" the canard down the runway safely, repeatably, and confidently, you are ready to fly the airplane. The biggest consideration is that you must "break" the canard loose, and immediately release back pressure or you will over rotate. Do not try to fly the airplane until you have this under control. The first couple of times that you attempt this, you will over rotate, or bounce the nose wheel off the runway. Once you have a feel for "breaking" the canard loose, it will become natural. As for the handling characteristic. Unless the Cozy is much different from the Long Ez which I doubt, The airplane has control authority, roll rate, and pitch rate which are more aggressive than any FAR Part 23 aircraft that you could rent. The difference is a comparison between a Buick Station Wagon, and a BMW M3. The Buick is a big boat which lumbers along. The BMW is very light weight, responsive, high powered, and turns on a dime. When the POH says the aircraft does not handle like a slow sluggish trainer, this is no lie. It is more like a little fighter airplane. Energy management is the rule here. As an example, I fly a Mooney sometimes with a friend. It is nothing to come barreling down the approach to final at 120-130kts, and bleed off the speed in the flare. If I attempted this in my Long EZ, I would use up all of the 6000ft runway and still not be below 90kts. This has wondered a little, but I think I have made the point. From: "astrong" Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 09:15:19 -0700 -----Original Message----- From: Rich Carrico To: Cozy builders Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 7:57 AM Subject: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy >"Is it easier to transition to flying the Cozy from a high wing aircraft such >as the Cessna 172 or a low wing such as the Piper Archer II or the Piper >Cherokee 180? > >Rich Carrico" Rich, I found flying the low wings with out the use of flaps was a close approximation of the COZY landing and takeoff characteristic. When you are ready ,have aCOZY flyer take you up and check you out. Alex From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:28:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Was said I respectfully disagree, nothing handles like a canard, if too slow on liftoff or approach. THe Ez's I have flown (only a Long from backseat and my Cosy) I have found easy to handle in the air. Numerous including an 4th grade girl who I told use the stick like a computer joystick, and my son-in-law's father (greying senior citizen) who had never been in a small plane before have not had any problems with reasonable control, in fact they were better than my first flight in a J-3. From: "STEPHEN OBRIEN" Subject: Re: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:02:48 -0500 Try to get some time in a Grumman Yankee or Tiger. They have castoring nosewheel similar to the Cozy, bubble canopy, and are light and nimble. They are probably as close to the Cozy as you can get for a spam can. Just my opinion - we own a Yankee. Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:51:36 +0200 From: "Rego Burger" Subject: COZY: Transition to Flying the Cozy Nat is correct in what he says.... the handbook makes sense...but I have had my first ride in a Vari-Eze to state...that it is not your average aeroplane... Not all will get this opertunity but if in doubt get to someone with the type you are to fly.... for a ride...do not take risks.... Now if there is nothing like it near you and you want 1% of an idea what it would be like try my sim file.... http://home.intekom.com/glen/rnb.htm go to canard builders link.... it;s there somewhere...if you can't find it e-mail me on rnb@intekom.co.za The file is not perfect....(low graphics) but good on the float for landing... fly the C182 first then try it...treat it as if it were your first flight and follow the handbook ( cozy) for real. set the elevator trim to 30% up first...on the "cozy" Do not use flaps.... use the / key for the landing brake. Plan B on real aeroplanes STOP using flaps on landings provided the runway is long enough....on types that use 70kts on approach... now see how much runway you use up... then add 50% to that in your mind before trying your test flight on your own cozy. P.S. low wing aeros will give you more ground effect. If you can do all emergency opps. in a type you are familiar with first prior to test flying any unknown.... the mind MUST be right for any test flight. Never turn back with an engine failure on T/Off...keep straight ahead look out each side way ahead for an off field... Now when you are finished playing..go build on your real aircraft...:-) Régo Burger RSA Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:01:34 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: Re: COZY: Fiberglass bolt size Rick Maddy wrote: > > Just out of curiosity - how many yards of fiberglass are on a full bolt? Rick, fiberglass is normally sold by the pound. If you are talking about BID and UNI, there should be from 100 to 140 yards. This is what our roll size comes in. There should hve been a label on the outside of the box giving the style, pounds and yards. Hope that helps -- Jeff Russell/AeroCad Inc. Website: http://www.Aerocad.com From: "wydo van de waerdt" Subject: COZY: Stress calculations done on canard Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:26:24 +0100 To all canard builders, I was wondering if there have been made stress calculations on the following designs,Varieze,long EZ, Cozy. In Europe especially in the Netherlands, stress reports on all primary structures are made for a certified design. I am looking for professional stress calculations done on any part of a canard type airplane. (Specially Cozy) Is there someone working at the FAA or knows people having excess to these reports? May be some one is the author or knows the author of stress reports on this subject. It can't be true that there isn't any stress calculation done. Rutan can't design canards without a little calculation. Nat Puffer wasn't able to supply my any stress reports. I don't know how the regulations are in the US for getting a certificate of Airworthiness of a new/ improved design. Perhaps building and just testing are OK in the US. Please contact me about this subject; Regards, Wydo van de Waerdt The Netherlands Cozy MkIV #827 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 08:18:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Stress calculations done on canard In the USA, stress calculations are not required for Amatuer built experimental (homebuilt) aircraft. If there are any they are probably Rutan's, and most likely not available. There may be some other calculations of local areas, BUT, just cause there are calculations, doesn't assure competence and adequate safety margins. From: "Romulo Augusto" Subject: COZY: Structural loads vectors Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 14:35:52 -0200 Hi Cozybuilders, any of you can help me in display the structural loads on Cozy? If necessary, I can send privatelly a image in .GIF, . BMP or another, from the sides, to make easy imagine what I mean. I am trying to figure the loads vectors at fligth and in the touchdown, regarding a engine something more heavy than Lyco O-320 and how may I perform reiforcements on the sides to work fine in a power of 250 Hp, and not with just 180-200 Hp, like in the original project. The guys in general makes reinforcements in the hardpoints on the firewall, of course, but maybe will be necessary more than this, to provide a more complete and equal load distribution along the sides? Thanks in advance. ________________________________________________________ Romulo Augusto da Cruz, Jr, Ten.Méd. , Cozy #0730 Rua da Bahia 1345/sala1103 Lourdes Belo Horizonte, MG Fones: 55-31-274-5667, 55-31-9948-2075, 55-31-497-2080 http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hall/3186 http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/aviacao-experimental From: Militch@aol.com Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:28:48 EST Subject: Re: COZY: Templates In a message dated 12/2/99 7:01:54 AM, Moparofer@aol.com wrote: > First a generic question: If a dimension is listed as 11.5 inches and the >template measures 11.7 inches which do you use? Now a more specific one: >Drawing M-5, the two piece landing gear bulkhead. I'm looking at the "L" >shaped piece, the one with the 7/8" inch hole. Below where it says "1 ply >UND both sides" there is a horizontal dashed line, I believe this is for a >piece that will come later from behind, is that accurate? If so then what is >the solid line 2.2 inches above it? More specifically is the width of that >area supposed to be 2.8 "or 2.5"? I hope that was clear enough and thank you >in advance. I go with the template. This is a convention in engineering drawings. If there is an edge that is hidden, it is shown as a dashed line. Generally, a side view will also be presented on the same drawing so you can see this in more detail. M5 has such a side view to the left of the page. As you can see, the upper drawing shows a part (it will serve as a cover for the landing gear bulkheads eventually) that has a champfered edge at the bottom and on the upper portion of the cross piece. The reason? This part gets installed at a slope - ultimately, the lower sloping edge will "sit" on top of the front bulkhead. At the very top of the cover (at the top of the part that has the 7/8 hole), that sloping edge will but against (or close to) the spar. The sloping part by the words "After Assembly ...." is for appearance. If you laid the finished part on a table, the dimension you ask about will be 2.8". You will see 2.5" from the bottom edge to the line that defines the edge of the top champfer, and then the extra 0.3" that slopes back. Hope that all helps. Regards, Peter Militch Cozy Mark IV #740 Chapter 10 From: "John Slade" Subject: Re: COZY: Templates Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:47:05 -0500 Hello Ofer, I had nothing to do this morning, so I looked at the M5 drawing. >that my skills are not developing as quickly as the drawings. Reading ahead usually makes things come clear. If its not clear, read it again. Eventually you'll get a feel for the "style" and things will become clear more quickly. > First a generic question: If a dimension is listed as 11.5 inches and the >template measures 11.7 inches which do you use? First you check that you're reading the text and the drawings correctly. Usually you'll find a good explanation for the difference - eventually. There are VERY few errors in the plans. >Now a more specific one: >Drawing M-5, the two piece landing gear bulkhead. I'm looking at the "L" >shaped piece, the one with the 7/8" inch hole. Below where it says "1 ply >UND both sides" there is a horizontal dashed line, I believe this is for a >piece that will come later from behind, is that accurate? No. I think these lines indicate the relief i.e. the angles that the foam will be sanded or cut to later. If you read on, you'll learn that this piece goes in at about a 45 degree angle. The dotted line indicates the "hidden" edge after sanding. The solid line indicates the front view of the angled edge. The plans use this approach a lot. >More specifically is the width of that area supposed to be 2.8 "or 2.5"? 2.8. The 2.5 will be from the angled edge. I think this is right, but no doubt others with jump in if I'm wrong. Regards, John Slade, Cozy #757 West Palm Beach, FL Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 06:58:50 -0500 From: Jeff Russell Subject: COZY: Re: Right-hand Drive Cozy NAFAIA@aol.com wrote: > > I am considering reversing the Instrument Panel and the Canopy Hinges > from the MkIV Plans to make a Right-hand Drive Cozy. > > Are there any other Right-hand Drives out there ? I would really appeciate > your comments. Nelson, I think Uli Wolters drove on the right side of his 3 place Cozy. He did hinge on the right but I would reverse then as you said so your the last one in. You could always go the Cosy Classic way and hinge in the front then both pilot and co-pilot can get in from either side. Instructors do this all the time. Standard left hand pattern work is not so good for sight, but you can get used to it. -- Jeff From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 09:32:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Right-hand Drive Cozy Consider resale value, and flight instruction situation. Are you left handed, I am heavily, and when trying to copy a clearance in turbulence, at times I would prefer sitting on the right side, using rudders to maintain heading, but if building again, I would stay with the left seat. Many planes are set up for flying with either hand or trottle and stick on either side. The J-3 and Super Cub (PA-18) have trottle, elevator trim on left, and stick between the knees where I use either hand. The last plane I flew before the COSY (left side) was left side Skyhawk, and occasionally fly a Mooney right seat as safety pilot and have no problems with either seat. Either way, check clearances for instruments (flight and engine), radio stack, etc. with elevator trim, etc. With IFR instruments on left side, radios middle, if I switched sides, the radios would be right in the way of the elevator trim springs (or probably electric trim). From: Signfun@aol.com Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:12:13 EST Subject: COZY: 233.35 mph 233.35 mph was recorded at Jean Nevada during a RACE event. I encourage everyone to come out to these events. They are always a lot of fun & an opportunity to see many canards & to share ideas. This was the first time I participated in the kilo races. I have participated in the regular races. We run a stock IO360 engine, no high compression, klaus electronic ignition & prop, we are turning 2900 rpm. The were many mods during the building process & after the plane was flying to optimize efficiency. Bruce Elkind Cozy MK IV 795DB Flying since March 1996 From: Signfun@aol.com Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 11:36:39 EST Subject: Re: COZY: 233.35 mph Here is a list of most of my mods. Gear doors for the front wheel. No under wing sumps, better flow under wings. Jeff Russell cowls, better flow/angle to prop. 8" extention, more air to prop. cut 2 1/2" off cowl, space in front of prop. Tight fitting wheel pants, min. amount of tire showing. Efficient prop, (tried 3 props, Klaus is fastest by 6 knots & provides better fuel burn. Electronic ignition, optimizes timing. Spinner by Klaus. Harmonic balancer. Fine tuning airframe, aileron position neutral & slightly reflexed. Canard elevator, in trail at cruise. IO 360 built by Ly-con, stock but with ported heads ( dyno'd at 220?). I have tried many different mods that were discarded along the way, a lot of trial & error. Bruce From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 21:30:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: COZY: Operation limitations - major modifications When installing a new prop, the F.A.A. required 2 hours in the test area, and 10 takeoffs and landings. After several rounds with the Sensenich props I was testing, they gave me a letter authorizing any of 2 Sensenich models with any pitch, providing weight and balance, prop model and serial numbers were entered in the log book; and proper engine RPM could be attained. The F.A.A. flexibility was a result of these props being built and designed to the same standard as the Sensenich certified props. Actually Sensenich could certify (if they sell enough to warrant the bother) these props for a given engine. THis would reduce the required test time to 25 hours. BUT, my experience has been that 40 hours is prudent. Its possible (not sure how probable) with a certified prop, one could change to a certified prop with minimal if any test time, which would be very good if you damage a prop miles from home. The F.A.A. was very strict with the log book entries. If something ever happened, they wanted to know which prop was being used. From: "Stanley Magill" Subject: COZY: Survival tips Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:51:25 -0800 While in Alaska, I picked up the following survival tips from the FAA (might be useful to carry a copy in your plane) Stan Magill SURVIVAL USES FOR AIRCRAFT PARTS AIR FILTER--fire starter since it’s usually made of paper and is impregnated with oil—highly flammable ALUMINUM SKIN—reflector for warm from a fire, signaling device, splint, snow shovel, saw blade BATTERY—signaling with aircraft lights or radio, fire starter BATTERY BOX—stove or cooking container CHARTS/MAPS—stuff inside clothing for insulation; don’t burn them since you may need them for navigation if it becomes inevitable that you need to walk to rescue COMPASS—direction indicator CONTROL CABLES—binding for shelter, splints DOORS—shelter, windbreak ENGINE COWLING—shelter, water collection, windbreak, fire platform ENGINE MAGNETOS—fire starter ENGINE OIL AND GAS—fire starter and fuel for fire, makes black smoke for signaling FABRIC SKIN—fire starting material and fuel, water collection FUEL CELLS—melt snow on black surface, burn for black smoke, lay out on ground for signals HOSES—siphoning fuel from tank INNER TUBES—canteen, elastic binding material when cut in strips, black smoke when burned INSIDE FABRIC—water straining or filter, clothing or coverings, bandages, fuel for fire LANDING LIGHTS, STROBES, ETC—signals when used with battery, lights at night, reflective surfaces for signaling when the battery dies NOSE CONE/SPINNER—bucket; container for sand, oil, and fuel; scooping tool, pot for cooking, funnel OIL FILTER—burn for black smoke ROTATING BEACON LENS—drinking cup RUGS—ground pad, insulation, clothing or warm covering SEATS—sleeping cushions, back brace for spinal injury, insulation, ground pad, sponge rubber for neck support SEATBELTS—binding material, slings, bandages TIRES—black smoke when burned VERTICAL STABILIZER—shelter support, fire platform WINDOWS—cutting tool WINGS—windbreak, shelter supports, overhead shade, platform for fire, water collector, signaling device; if the aircraft is intact, blankets or plastic tarps draped over the wings and secured to the ground make an excellent tent WINGTIPS—drip collection and water carriers WIRING—binding and rope, starting fire with battery WOODEN WING STRUTS, BRACES, OR PROPS—fire starter and fuel From: "Michael Sausen" Subject: COZY: Nice builders logging program Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 13:59:26 CST All, I ran across I really nice program for logging all of your efforts and money put into building the aircraft. It is completly freeware and can be found at the following: http://www.vvm.com/~tromain/Company/3shome.htm It also looks like it is MS Access based so you could pop it open in there and manipulate it anyway you wanted. Regards, Michael Sausen ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com