Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:26:38 -0500 From: Ewestland@aol.com Subject: Re: Radio Systems Technology ???/coax and torroids Marc, While I got my supplies from RST 3 years ago without any trouble, I have since ordered more copper tape and coax from Wicks - they were cheaper and I needed some other stuff anyways. I don't know where to get the torids. By the way, unless you are going to put in the Loran ground plane, you can do without much of the tape. I also ordered the $5.00 RST collection of articles that describe how to mount the antennas along with the specs. It was helpful in understanding how it all went together. If anyone in the group needs one soon and cannot get one from RST, let me know and I will photo copy the relevant parts of it and drop it in the mail. If you need specifics right away, feel free to give me a call in the evening at 206-742-6798. One additional note : if you decide to place one of the Nav antennas on the bottom of the fuselage like the plans call for, be sure to layout the cut-out for the nose wheel so you do not have to cut into your antenna later (I almost made this mistake). Eric Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 20:14:12 -0500 (EST) From: pathways Subject: Naca Scoop Chapter 7 Page 2 Paragraph 2 I am not sure how the Naca scoop is to be contoured with the bottom. The urethane foam that I used for the scoop does not meet the contoured bottom edges. Should it? I can easily add another piece of urethane so that the bottom corners blended directly into the naca scoop. Option two is to contour the edges of the naca scoop gradually down along the sides. However this does not give the bottom a real smooth shape. All advice is appreciated. Marty Kansky N321CZ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:33:05 -0500 From: SidLloyd@aol.com Subject: Re: sheet metal warning - Cha... >If you think this is >frustrating, wait until you glass around the Naca scoop and try to get >the glass to stay in the "joggle". Something more frustrating- after all the effort to get the naca scoop right and the wierd shaped gear cover, I've eliminated the scoop all together and will use arm-pit scoops! Could have saved me a hundred hours or so and had more room on the interior... Sid Lloyd Date: Tue, 7 Mar 95 13:12:41 EST Subject: Re: Naca Scoop Chapter 7 Page 2 Paragraph 2 Marty; >I am not sure how the Naca scoop is to be contoured with the bottom. The >urethane foam that I used for the scoop does not meet the contoured >bottom edges. Should it? I can easily add another piece of urethane so >that the bottom corners blended directly into the naca scoop. Option two >is to contour the edges of the naca scoop gradually down along the >sides. However this does not give the bottom a real smooth shape. Did you ever get any answer(s) to this? If so, maybe you could distribute them to the list. Thanks. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 23:09:17 -0500 (EST) From: pathways Subject: Re: Naca Scoop Chapter 7 Page 2 Paragraph 2 Marc, I thought this went to the list. I didn't receive any answers. I ended up adding some Urethane foam so the rounded bottom end bevels into the naca scoop. I am trying to get the bottom ready for glassing on sunday. I am looking forward to having a complete structure. I started in June of last year and am excited about hitting this milestone. ...Marty Kansky On Tue, 7 Mar 1995, Marc J. Zeitlin wrote: > Marty; > > >I am not sure how the Naca scoop is to be contoured with the bottom. The > >urethane foam that I used for the scoop does not meet the contoured > >bottom edges. Should it? I can easily add another piece of urethane so > >that the bottom corners blended directly into the naca scoop. Option two > >is to contour the edges of the naca scoop gradually down along the > >sides. However this does not give the bottom a real smooth shape. > > Did you ever get any answer(s) to this? If so, maybe you could distribute > them to the list. Thanks. > > -- > > Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 08:44:04 -0500 From: SidLloyd@aol.com Subject: Re: sheet metal & common sump >Sid, if you wouldn't mind making your set-up available via a description, >plans, GIF files, DXF files, whatever, I'd sure appreciate it, and I'd >guess everyone else would also. If you have some info on the "arm-pit" >scoops vs. the NACA scoop, I'd appreciate that as well. Well, I didn't draw up any plans, I just jut & fit. What I did was run the fuel lines directly from the strakes, within the rear armrests, through the gear bulkheads, and then made a 90 degree turn against the rear firewall heading to the center of the airplane. It is all downhill. The sump (since I removed the NACA scoop) goes all the way to the bottom of the fuselage. I am keeping it the same width as the NACA scoop used to be in there in order to reach the rear main gear attachment bolts. The top is level with the top of the panel connecting the front and rear main gear bulkheads. There is a flush fitting drain in the bottom and a vent line with an in-line check-valve going back to the right wing tank. The fuel line then exits the sump laterally and connects to a 90 degree pass-through fitting which takes it through the bulkhead. I had a hard time finding a remote on-off valve and I think I ended up finding one at Alexander Aeroplane. The actuator was very cheesy and not airworthy (in my opinion) so I made a new one from aluminum and now it works very well. The sump will have close to 2 gal capacity and I will put a low fuel warning switch in it. Advantages- 1/ a common fuel supply without having to constantly switch from one tank to another 2/ another drain to catch debris 3/ no fuel lines running into the cabin, up through the valve by the front seat and back to the firewall (fewer points of failure) Disadvantages- 1/ if you get one bad tank of gas you now have two (but usually we fill both anyway, right?) and 2/ cable actuated remote on/off valve (potential point of failure) On the NACA scoop, if you read the plan corrections in the newsletters you know that the dimensions per-plans are not correct. The bottom (well, top actually) of the NACA scoop should go in a straight line from the front to the firewall but per-plans it actually follows the curve of the bottom fuselage. Then you have 2 inches of low density foam just forward of the front main gear bulkhead. Not a good design there. If I were making it over, I'd run the bottom fuselage straight back to the bottom of the front rear bulkhead, deepen the fuselage sides to match, and eliminate the scoop. What caused me to change from the scoop to arm-pit scoops were some articles I read in CSA newsletters. Arm-pit scoops apparently provide superior cooling with less drag (if designed correctly). I believe you have to keep the inner expansion angle between 7 and 12 degrees to keep the air attached, expanded, and cooled. Anyway, since I didn't like the NACA scoop anyway, I filled it in. Yes, now I have 2" of pour-foam and low-density foam all the way across, covered by bid layups. Oh well... I will be using the arm-pit scoops that AeroCad sells. Sid Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 07:06:23 -0500 (EST) From: pathways Subject: Glassing the bottom I am ready to glass the bottom fuselage and would like to know what it means "The overlap of the bottom layup with the side layup should be at the corners, and the edges of the plies should be staggered 1 in. and the overlap of each ply should be one inch." I understand the staggering of one inch. But what does the overlap mean? Is this take into account the side plies that need to overlap the bottom plies by one inch for each layer? Second, should the first layer of glass extend to the wooden longeron at the bottom corner or should it go beyond it an inch? Thanks ...Marty Kansky - When in doubt, check it out! Date: Thu, 23 Mar 95 9:35:00 EST Subject: Glassing the bottom (fwd) Marty asks: >I am ready to glass the bottom fuselage and would like to know what it >means "The overlap of the bottom layup with the side layup should be at >the corners, and the edges of the plies should be staggered 1 in. and the >overlap of each ply should be one inch." > >I understand the staggering of one inch. But what does the overlap >mean? Is this take into account the side plies that need to overlap the >bottom plies by one inch for each layer? (ASCII art leaves something to be desired - make believe there's a corner and that the Side Plies are vertical :-) ). Bottom Plies Side plies ------------ ---------- --> <-- 1" | | ------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- --------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------------ ^^^^^^^^^^ corner area I don't remember if there are two plies or three (maybe two AND three, depending on bottom/side), but I would interpret it to mean that after the bottom plies cure and you lay up the Side Plies, that you try to line them up so that there's an overlap of each ply, but only ONE doubling of layers (so you don't get a bulge in the corner area. Does this make sense to people? I'm going to be doing this layup in a couple of weeks as well, and would be very interested in what those of you who've done this before did. >.................................. Second, should the first layer >of glass extend to the wooden longeron at the bottom corner or should it >go beyond it an inch? I'd assume that as long as you put the right number of plies on, and that you get the overlap and stagger right (by whichever analysis of it turns out to be "right") that the exact positioning of the overlap (right on the longeron, or an inch or so to one side or the other) wouldn't be critical. Again, comments? -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 23 Mar 1995 23:05:51 -0500 From: Ewestland@aol.com Subject: Re: Glassing the bottom (fwd) Marc has this right - at least that's the way I did it as well. The one inch overlap is to bond the plies together and can be anywhere it fits - no need to extend it beyond the wooden longeron as far as I know. The carving you do will probably have alot more to do with the filling required during finishing than any glass buldges. A side note - I carved carefully and when I was done, the Brock step didn't fit like it should have anyways, so I built my own retracting step. If anyone wants the Brock part, I'll give it to you for the cost of shipping, probably a couple of bucks - just let me know. Eric Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 07:20:34 -0500 (EST) From: pathways Subject: shaping f28 I glassed the bottom this weekend. It took 4 hours with two people. In preparing to glass the sides I am contouring the upper edges. The question is that the plans say to make f28 4 inches wide. At the sides where it meets the upper longerons it is over an inch taller. I am assuming that f28 needs to be contoured from the center till it meets the upper longeron. How did you do this? The plans says that if it is done right is will get rid of the "squareness" of the nose. Any advice? ...Marty Kansky N321CZ Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 15:43:08 -0500 From: SidLloyd@aol.com Subject: armpit scoops I closed in the NACA scoop and will be putting armpit scoops on mine. In the latest newsletter, an added benefit to this would be in case of electrical failure of the speed brake (option, not the mechanical per-plans one). A guy lowered his to get under a cloud deck and couldn't retract it. The air-flow was cut off from the NACA scoop and he almost cooked his engine. Armpit scoops won't be affected. Sid From: Lee Devlin Subject: Re: shaping f28 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 95 15:01:02 MDT > > I glassed the bottom this weekend. It took 4 hours with two people. In > preparing to glass the sides I am contouring the upper edges. The > question is that the plans say to make f28 4 inches wide. At the sides > where it meets the upper longerons it is over an inch taller. I am > assuming that f28 needs to be contoured from the center till it meets the > upper longeron. How did you do this? The plans says that if it is done > right is will get rid of the "squareness" of the nose. Any advice? > > ...Marty Kansky > N321CZ I interpreted this change as making the part 4 inches tall in the middle instead of 3.3" (i.e. .7" higher) as opposed to 4" thick all the way across. I re-shaped the template on a CAD system so that the curvature at the ends was at the same as the original. This keeps the buttline and intersects the longerons at the same curvature as the original. However, the middle is higher and thus the part has more gradually curved surface on top. F28 originally had a long spanwise flat section that gives the nose too much squareness. I think you can reshape your f28 bulkhead even if it's already installed so that it has a gradual curve up to the center. If you want the CAD file, Marc has it on the Web along with f22, the instrument panel, and the seatback. If you don't have access to the WWW, but have access to a plotter, I can email you the hpgl file or .dxf file if you'd like. Lee Devlin Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 18:16:23 EDT Subject: Bottom Fuselage Layup tip Howdy. I think I forgot to mention something I did during the bottom fuselage layup which I think might be helpful to others. I tried mightily to get the 2 UNI layers to lay down cleanly in the recess around the air brake and duct tape, but it wouldn't listen to my entreaties. I frantically searched through the manual to see if there was some reason the brake couldn't be seperated from the fuselage until the official time in Chapter 9, but couldn't find one. So, I razor trimmed the wet layup around the duct tape and brake where I was told to saw through it (in Chapter 9). This let the glass around the brake stretch and move so that it pretty cleanly lay down in the recesses. Since some of the epoxy bridged the gap, the brake isn't going anywhere by itself, and won't come off until the official time in Chap. 9. Thought this might be of some use to you who are approaching Chapter 7. Maybe you'll have better luck with the glass staying put, but this might help if you don't. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Bottom Fuselage Layup tip Date: Wed, 5 Apr 95 18:16:23 EDT Howdy. I think I forgot to mention something I did during the bottom fuselage layup which I think might be helpful to others. I tried mightily to get the 2 UNI layers to lay down cleanly in the recess around the air brake and duct tape, but it wouldn't listen to my entreaties. I frantically searched through the manual to see if there was some reason the brake couldn't be seperated from the fuselage until the official time in Chapter 9, but couldn't find one. So, I razor trimmed the wet layup around the duct tape and brake where I was told to saw through it (in Chapter 9). This let the glass around the brake stretch and move so that it pretty cleanly lay down in the recesses. Since some of the epoxy bridged the gap, the brake isn't going anywhere by itself, and won't come off until the official time in Chap. 9. Thought this might be of some use to you who are approaching Chapter 7. Maybe you'll have better luck with the glass staying put, but this might help if you don't. -- Marc J. Zeitlin E-Mail: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Mon, 12 Jun 95 09:10:14 PDT From: "Michael Antares" Subject: Tool thoughts I was confronted with how to easily make the 1/16th inch depressions on the fuselage bottom for the speed brake (plus other similar areas). Then I remembered that Dremel has a router attachment for their Moto tool. Voila! The perfect answer with a cost (locally) of less than $40. Highly recommended for those of you who haven't got that far yet... Another suggestion for those of you who haven't as yet done the NACA scoop glassing. I pondered for a long while how to get the glass to lay in the scoop easily. I ended up using some of my wife's ultra strong thread. One length down the corners and one up near the top. It worked beautifully, was as easy to remove as peel ply and left no marks. I tied the thread to small brads pushed into the foam in front of the scoop, pulled the thread around the scoop and across the front landing gear bulkhead to another brad located in the side of the fuselage adjacent to the bulkhead (one on each side). Michael Antares Software/Hardware Systems Engineering mantares@crl.com Santa Rosa, California Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 16:05:03 -0400 From: NBalog@aol.com Subject: Builders' tool tips 1. For those of you who haven't yet gotten to shaping the fuselage (chapter 7), Nat's suggestion to use a 2x4 wanding block works to a point, but as I was trying to get a nicely rounded "corner" on the bottom (not smaller and smaller flats) it occurred to me that sanding belts are round. Has the little light bulb gone on over your head yet? I had a "spare" 4x36 inch belt from my table top belt/disc sander that I took to the sides with relish (AFTER doing the initiial 45 deg. cut into the longeron and trimming off some excess from the bottom and side with a hand-held belt sander and the 2x4 sanding block) and much elbow grease (this mixes well with composite construction, I've found); lapping the sides like a street-corner shoe- shine boy, I've gotten the fuselage corner rounded pretty well up to about the mid-point of the landing brake cutout. It should be possible to use the belt further back on the fuselage. One other thing... I suggest putting a couple of 1/2 inch or larger dowels - broomsticks? - inside the belt at the ends to keep the belt from splitting. I didn't do this (that's why I don't have a spare belt now). 2. Anyone else having a hard time getting the heat duct to come out square? I was playing blocks with my two-year old when I got an idea for alignment. I took some scrap 7/8 x 2" sticks, cut them on a bandsaw to exactly 1.5" in diameter, then drew lines on my worktable 1.5" apart about three feet long. Using a hot glue-gun I tacked the blocks between the lines, and tacked the sides of the duct to the blocks (hot glue peels off the glass/epoxy layups really well) holding the edges down against the table top; this gave me an exact 1.5" diameter space at the top into which I fitted the duct top, drilling some holes for #17 finishing nails to hold everything in place. I floxed the top in place and cut a 3" (or whatever the width is up front) piece of scrap wood I also hot-glued into place at the front of the duct (where it meets the instrument panel). During cure I used c-clamps at the flare (there was a block inside at this point) and three or four other points and this setup kept everything steady the next night (minus clamps) while I sanded the corners round (NOT in the back where the seat brace fits). I then made the seatbelt retainer piece, fitted it, and laid up the 7-ply UNI strip. I peel plied this in place overnight, and the next night rapped the whole arrangement with my hand to break it free of my work table. Next I hot-glued the blocks to a 1x6x36 board also glued on-edge on my table so the duct was elevated for some working space to layup the BID cover. I'll use the same sequence to do the rear duct. Hope this is clear and will help someone out. Any other ideas out there? -Norm From: Lee Devlin Subject: Chap 7 fuselage skinning Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 9:22:46 MDT I am doing the various items that lead up to skinning the outside of the fuselage and have run into some confusion about what to do around the triangular pieces of plywood that are installed at either side of the gear opening. There is no specific mention about placing foam blocks outside these pieces but I did so anyway. Now I'm not sure how much to sand away. Originally, I sanded them down to match the other foam, which is 1/8" bigger than the bulkheads but that didn't look right so I sanded it down a little more to match the bulkheads but that doesn't look right either. I assume there's going to be fairings built up around the gear legs right at this location so maybe it doesn't matter. Perhaps there's no layup required in that area at all? What did you guys do? By the way, in shaping the fuselage corners around the area of the NACA scoop, I found that I had to add foam at the edges. I had almost cut the area away with a saber saw since that's how I read the instructions where it read something like: 'cut into the lower longeron 1/4" until you get to the midpoint of the landing brake, after that point don't cut into the longeron'. It should read: "After that point, put the saw away and use a Stanley surform to shape the foam from that point backward." If you continue cutting away at the foam at a 45 degree angle, it easy to remove too much foam so that you'll never be able to get a rounded edge that matches the LG bulkheads. Lee Devlin From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Chap 7 fuselage skinning Date: Thu, 12 Oct 95 11:40:06 EDT Lee Devlin writes: >..... I assume there's going to be fairings built up around the gear >legs right at this location so maybe it doesn't matter. Perhaps there's >no layup required in that area at all? What did you guys do? Personally, I sanded them down to match the rest of the FOAM in that area, but I haven't done my LG cover yet, so I'm not sure what will happen. Read on to see if you should pay any attention at all to what I say :-). >............... 'cut into the lower longeron 1/4" until >you get to the midpoint of the landing brake, after that point don't cut >into the longeron'. It should read: "After that point, put the saw >away and use a Stanley surform to shape the foam from that point >backward." If you continue cutting away at the foam at a 45 degree >angle, it easy to remove too much foam so that you'll never be able to >get a rounded edge that matches the LG bulkheads. Hmmmpphh. Well, I guess that's a sentence in the instructions that I missed. I cut 1/4" into the longeron all the way back, and I've got a slight "flat" in the curvature towards the rear. Never could figure out why - now I know. Just cosmetic, and If I care I'll go back and build up the shape, but I don't think I care. Thanks for pointing that out, Lee :-). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 07:12:41 -0600 From: Scott Mandel Subject: Chapter 7 Firewall and Lnd Gear Bulk Heads X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Last night I was rolling along in chapter 7 installing the foam between the firewall and the Landing Gear Bulkhead. I started looking at the pictures in the plans and it shows the firewall bottom (top, upside down) level with the landing gear bulkhead. My firewall is a half an inch lower than the bulkhead. Can anyone tell me if this is right? I'm hoping I was looking at a strange camera angle. I remeasured everything and can't image how I could have gotten this far off. -The plans only talk about one two inch piece of foam. In the pictures it does reach the bottom (top, upside down) of the bulkheads. I assume one must add foam until it is level with the bulkheads, no? From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Chapter 7 Firewall and Lnd Gear Bulk Heads (fwd) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 8:51:22 EST Scott Mandel writes: >............. My firewall is a half an inch lower than the >bulkhead. Can anyone tell me if this is right? I believe that the firewall is smaller than the bulkhead, and that there is an offset. I don't know if mine was 1/2", but I know there was some. In looking at the pictures on my web page, I can see some offset, but it's hard to tell how much. 1/2" doesn't seem totally unreasonable - I'd guess mine was between 1/4" and 1/2". >-The plans only talk about one two inch piece of foam. In the pictures it >does reach the bottom (top, upside down) of the bulkheads. I assume one >must add foam until it is level with the bulkheads, no? I was able to do it with one 2" piece. Yes, the foam must be level with the firewall, and actually I think it has to be slightly ABOVE the bulkhead, so that you can make the "joggle" for the Landing Gear Cover. The most important thing is to have a smooth transition on the fuselage bottom across the LGC to the firewall and the cowling. If you're going to have a bump at the rear LGB because it's a little too high, you can always take 1/4" or so off of it before you mount the aluminum inserts and glass over it. Just make sure that your NACA scoop has the right shape as well. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 07:37:09 -0600 From: Scott Mandel Subject: Chap 7, Fuselage Antenna X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII People have relayed that they chopped through their fuselage antenna while installing the nose gear. I marked it out and saw that it would be very close, so I reversed the angle (V opens backwards). A fellow Cozy builder (not on the Net so I'll leave his name out) thought this might affect my Nav reception. I said, "Hey I never got any worse reception flying "FROM" a VOR as oppose to "TO" a VOR. He commented that all the airplanes he's ever seen face the antenna forward, so there must be a good reason. I've flown C-150s and they fly backwards (in strong winds) and it doesn't affect their reception :-). Seriously, Do any of you wiz-bang electrical guys out there know if it makes any difference if the Nav faces forward or backward. Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 15:26:54 -0600 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (faculty S. A. Campbell) Subject: Antenna If you put the antenna in backwards .... hm .... Well there is of course the Doppler shift which could be significant if you put in the Franklin :-) But seriously folks it shouldn't make any difference unless there is some interference due to other metal in the plane such as the instrument panel. This is really unlikely. My vote would be to put it in in whatever direction minimizes the chance of damaging it during subsequent construction. Regards Steve (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0tHYM9-000UdkC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 07:42 PST (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tHYM7-000tx6C; Mon, 20 Nov 95 07:42 PST Date: Sun, 19 Nov 95 08:37:00 PST From: Brian DeFord Subject: Chap 7 - foam contouring Builders, In the process of preparing the fuselage for it's outer glass layups, I began to wonder about the bottom foam where it joins the F22 bulkhead. Since this is where the nose section will join, is there some sort of recess made in the foam to account for glass overlay? Also, when contouring the area around F22, how close to the bulkhead do you contour? My bottom foam is probably 3/16" higher than the bulkead in this area (by higher I mean the foam sticks up that much above the bulkead with the fuselage upside down). I only question this because I couldn't find the answer late last night in the plans and now it's bugging me. Brian DeFord From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Chap 7 - foam contouring (fwd) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 95 10:52:51 EST Brian DeFord writes; > In the process of preparing the fuselage for it's outer glass > layups, I began to wonder about the bottom foam where it joins the F22 > bulkhead. Since this is where the nose section will join, is there > some sort of recess made in the foam to account for glass overlay? The answer to this (and your other questions, I believe) are actually in the plans. Look at them a little earlier in the evening :-). There is a recess of about 1/16" depth for the overlap. Don't worry about how close you get to the bulkhead - just make sure the recess is the right depth. I put a radius on the edge as well, so that the glass would wrap around easily. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 10:24:00 -0600 From: Scott Mandel Subject: Chap 7 Landing Break X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Hi guys, I just got back from vacation. I haven't glassed the bottom of the fuselage yet and decided to spend the week thinking about it. Okay, I really thought more about the sun and the sand. Here's my question: Can anyone tell me why there is the extra 1 inch depression outside where I built up the 1 inch of tape? (Smail3.1.28.1 #7) id m0tPC2D-000UeJC; Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:29 PST (Smail3.1.28.1 #2) id m0tPC2C-000qE1C; Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:29 PST Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 10:24:00 PST From: Brian DeFord Subject: Re: Chap 7 Landing Break Text item: Hi guys, I just got back from vacation. I haven't glassed the bottom of the fuselage yet and decided to spend the week thinking about it. Okay, I really thought more about the sun and the sand. Here's my question: Can anyone tell me why there is the extra 1 inch depression outside where I built up the 1 inch of tape? The one inch depression is where the outside surface of the speed brake will lay when retracted. This outside surface is a layup which you will make later (I believe in chapter 9). Look there to get a better idea of how things will go together. Brian DeFord Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:20:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re: Chap 7 Landing Break X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII The extra depression is to accomodate an additional layup. After glassing the bottom of the fuselage you cut the landing brake out along the perimeter of the tape build up. You then flip the brake over and glass the underside. When you put the brake back in with the tape removed the outside of the brake will be flush with the fuselage bottom. I think I left out a step or two but the above explanation is at least conceptually right. Best to check your plans. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Chap 7 Landing Break Author: mandel@newsnet.esy.com at INTERNET Date: 12/11/95 11:45 AM Here's my question: Can anyone tell me why there is the extra 1 inch depression outside where I built up the 1 inch of tape? Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:03:47 -0500 From: JQUESTCOZY@aol.com Subject: nav antenna Subj: nav antenna Date: 95-12-11 18:56:13 EST From: JQUESTCOZY To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com(cozybuilders) I don't know if anyone had the same problem but here goes: I used the copper foil tape on the fuselage bottom for my nav antenna and when I went to cut out the area for my nosewheel I discovered that the tape was a little too far forward. I should have applied the tape farther aft so that the "V" would clear the nosewheel. Anyhow I was thinking of laying up another "V" antenna a few inches aft of the first one over the glass layups already cured and putting a 2 inch single ply over this and routing a small groove similar to what I think marc did for the coax to come out just fwd of the instrument panel. I was trying to avoid a large bump by just using one ply to hold the foil tape in place and avoid digging out the original foil tape.My question is : Do you guys think one ply is enough? Do the think the original foil tape just in front of the operating antenna will affect antenna performance at all? / / / / < 1st ant (in way of nosewheel cutout) \ \ \ \ Better Ideas are Welcome!! :-) thanks, John Wilemski Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 20:03:48 -0500 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: Re: nav antenna John Wilemski wrote: >I don't know if anyone had the same problem but here goes: I used the copper >foil tape on the fuselage bottom for my nav antenna and when I went to cut >out the area for my nosewheel I discovered that the tape was a little too far >forward. I should have applied the tape farther aft so that the "V" would >clear the nosewheel..... >Do the think the original foil tape just in front of the operating antenna >will affect >antenna performance at all? > > / / > / / < 1st ant (in way of nosewheel cutout) > \ \ > \ \ Sorry, but that first antenna will definitely effect the performance of the second one you plan to install. I can't make any recommendations as to a proper fix as I'm not that far along with my plane yet, but I've had lots of radio experience and you DON'T want to have that 2nd piece of copper so close to your antenna. I'm sure some of these other guy's on here can come up with ideas for a proper fix (this is definitely one talented bunch of people). Jim Hocut jhocut@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 23:11:47 -0500 From: StetsonE@aol.com Subject: Re: nav antenna >I don't know if anyone had the same problem but here goes: I used the copper >foil tape on the fuselage bottom for my nav antenna and when I went to cut >out the area for my nosewheel I discovered that the tape was a little too >far forward. I should have applied the tape farther aft so that the "V" would >clear the nosewheel..... Well, it appears from Jim Holcut's comments that you shouldn't put a new antenna aft of the first one. Because the Long-EZ's fuselage isn't wide enough to mount a nav antenna, the antenna is mounted in a "V" on the canard. Perhaps that is your solution. Mine was mounted on the bottom of the canard with the bottom of the "V" on the centerline as far aft on the flat canard bottom as I could place it, and the ends of the "V" ending about 2" aft of the leading edge. I secured it with one ply of the lightweight hobby store type bid tape. I was concerned that it would destroy the contour of the canard, but it didn't. It "disappeared" in the microfill stage. Stet Elliott Perpetual Long-EZ builder Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 08:04:35 EST From: MISTER@neesnet.com Subject: Re: nav antenna John Wilemski's inquiry: >>Anyhow I was thinking of laying up another "V" antenna a few inches aft of the first one over the glass layups already cured and putting a 2 inch single ply over this << I'm really not sure what effect the second "element" on your nav antenna will have. It is not used for transmitting. My guess is that you won't notice any detrimental effects. However, I would do as you described. I would also put a second nav antenna in the canard. That's what I did. You probably can get by with one nav antenna. I won't be using either of my nav antennas (initially). I don't plan to install a nav radio (for a while anyway). I'll be buying a GPS though. I think the one ply should be adequate for this application. Bob Misterka N342RM From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Re: nav antenna (fwd) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 8:16:22 EST Stet Elliott wrote in response to John Wilemski: >.......... Mine was mounted on the bottom of the canard >with the bottom of the "V" on the centerline as far aft on the flat canard >bottom as I could place it, and the ends of the "V" ending about 2" aft of >the leading edge.......... It "disappeared" in the microfill stage. Considering that "NAV" equipment will be close to obsolete by the time we "still building our fuselages" are done :-), and that there's a LOT of room in the canard and the wings for multiple NAV, MKR BCN, etc. antennae, I wouldn't worry about it. I'd just forget that one, put one in the canard and maybe one in one wing, and leave it at that. Not worth screwing up the fuselage for. You'll have at least one NAV antennae, if not two, and a GPS for sure, and there's still more than enough room in the wings and the canard for other antennae. my $0.02. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: 13 Dec 95 11:38:13 EST From: Chuck <75501.356@compuserve.com> Subject: Nav antenna suggestion One suggestion on the nav antenna was not to worry about it, since this "technology" may not be in use for long. I agree, but I am using the nav antenna as called for in the plans as my ELT antenna. It is cut a bit (~1/8") longer than required (I think, I always get this reversed), but is certainly close enough for an acceptable SWR. I use a GPS, and my plane is not rated for IFR flight. Maybe some of the electrical engineers can comment further on this.