Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 14:05:47 -0600 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (prof S. A. Campbell) Subject: Fuel Valve I'm working my way through chapter 6 (I finally got a fuel valve bracket made that didn't break when I bent it) and I seem to remember that there was a concern about the size of the opening for the fuel valve. Specifically if it should be enlarged so that the valve could be more readily replaced. I looked through the archives, but didn't really see a definitive answer. Any wisdom out there? Steve Campbell Cozy Builder (#473) From: Lee Devlin Subject: Re: Fuel Valve Date: Fri, 19 Jan 96 13:49:52 MST Steve writes: > I'm working my way through chapter 6 (I finally got a fuel valve bracket > made that didn't break when I bent it) and I seem to remember that there was > a concern about the size of the opening for the fuel valve. Specifically if > it should be enlarged so that the valve could be more readily replaced. I > looked through the archives, but didn't really see a definitive answer. Any > wisdom out there? I asked the original question and am not sure if all the answers made it into the archives. Specifically, you will have to enlarge a portion of the slot on the bottom of the seatback to be able to mount the fuel valve after you have installed the seat support. It's better to do it before installing the support. Use the fuel valve to size the hole. Otherwise, you have to take the dental approach with the dremel tool later. Lee Devlin Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 21:02:39 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Fuel Valve On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, prof S. A. Campbell wrote: Use a gravity feed Holding tank > Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 14:05:47 -0600 > From: prof S. A. Campbell > To: cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com > Subject: Fuel Valve > > I'm working my way through chapter 6 (I finally got a fuel valve bracket > made that didn't break when I bent it) and I seem to remember that there was > a concern about the size of the opening for the fuel valve. Specifically if > it should be enlarged so that the valve could be more readily replaced. I > looked through the archives, but didn't really see a definitive answer. Any > wisdom out there? > Steve Campbell > Cozy Builder (#473) > Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 18:14:01 -0500 From: PBurkha238@aol.com Subject: Re: Fuel Valve This is how I did my fuel valve Steve, when I built mine I actually installed the fuel valve later in the process, and yes I had to make the opening larger---just larger. I then made a plate( 5 plys of bid layed flat) to cover the fuel valve area where I increased the opening. (it looks better too)..Drill a hole in it just big enough to fit the valve stem through. The greater problem I ran into was the heat lever( the push -pull type). seems it has a nut on the rear threaded portion which will be impossible to tighten up from under the seat bulkhead. I opened the area where the cable would come through and installed the cable to the plate(same as above) I then installed the plate to the seat back ( try to reinforce the area where you are going to install the screws. I used flox, just drill a hole in it and fill. I then used a sheet metal type screw . If I had to do it from scratch I would have installed small aluminum slugs in the seat bulkhead and use threaded screws on the plate. Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:36:32 -0500 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: Ch 6 - Problem ? In jigging up the fuse sides w/ F-22 and the mock firewall, I have gotten everything as level as possible. In the middle of the fuse sides the upper longerons are approx 1/8" lower than at the ends. In other words, starting from the front of the assembly, the top of the upper longerons goes downhill about 1/8" (at the fuselage midpoint), then back uphill towards the rear. It appears that I could correct this by rotating the fuse sides where they mate up to F-22 and the firewall, but this would throw the mating points off about 1/2". My incliniation is to leave well enough alone and move on - any thoughts ? Thanks, Jim Hocut Cozy IV # 448 jhocut@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:39:43 -0600 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (prof S. A. Campbell) Subject: Chapter 6 Supplies Just a quick comment for those of you early in the process. I order chapters 6,7, and 8 from Wicks a while back and during my building this weekend found that they had not shipped the aluminum tube needed to include with the heat duct (for the seat belt attach). A call to Wick's reveals that they no longer have a source for the tubing, which is 6061 Aluminum T3. Actually this stuff in various sizes is used in several locations through the build. Your options are: 1) Find another source 2) Use T6. This is a softer Al, but Nat say that is OK in this application. Wick's has this in stock, but will not use it to replace the T3 unless you specifically ask them to. 3) Use stainless. This is easy to find and stronger, but heavier. I'll probably use the stainless so that I don't have to wait to Wicks and it's such a small piece that I can't image that the weight penalty will amount to much. Anyone else have a T3 source? Steve Campbell Mark Iv (#473) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:07:32 -0600 From: campbell@ee.umn.edu (prof S. A. Campbell) Subject: Mea Culpa I was reminded that this news is a couple of months old and that the material is available from Aircraft Spruce. Keep Building Steve Campbell Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:49:13 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Walsh Subject: Re: Ch 6 - Problem ? On Sat, 27 Jan 1996 JHocut@aol.com wrote: Sound a little late for major repair...just be sure you have "level" points to work from as that is the basis for all of your work from now on. If you want to call me I will explain how I did mine...It may not be tooo late. Otherwise..be sure to build your canopy to the curvature!!!! > I have gotten everything as level as possible. In the middle > of the fuse sides the upper longerons are approx 1/8" > lower than at the ends. In other words, starting from the > front of the assembly, the top of the upper longerons goes > downhill about 1/8" (at the fuselage midpoint), then back > uphill towards the rear. It appears that I could correct this > by rotating the fuse sides where they mate up to F-22 and > the firewall, but this would throw the mating points off about > 1/2". My incliniation is to leave well enough alone and move > on - any thoughts ? > > Thanks, > > Jim Hocut Cozy IV # 448 > jhocut@aol.com > Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 03:44:00 -0500 From: Dick.Finn@FNB.sprint.com Subject: Re: Ch 6 - Problem ? Jim, As the sides are curved outward, moving the bottom center of each side out slightly should pust the center of the side upward. Try puttin a shim between the bottom of the bulkheads and the sides. Maybe that would help. If that doesn't work, Id be inclined to live with a 1/8" error on the height of the sides as opposed to a 1/2 inch error on the bottom width. The 1/8" error could be corrected for when you build the turtledeck and canopy. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 21:55:46 -0500 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: Ch 6 Dumb Screw Up Once upon a time there was an oaf that lived outside of Atlanta, GA..... Well, anyway, I very carefully floxed the rear gear attach bulkhead in place, perfectly vertical and exactly 5.00000 inches in front of the firewall, which is exactly 101.75000 inches behind the F-22 bulkhead. I followed the plans to a T on how to get perfect alignment of the forward gear attach bulkhead while installing it, exactly 8.000000 inches in front of the rear gear attach bulkhead. But wait, there must be an error in the plans because the top of the forward gear attach bulkhead isn't level with the LWX stringer as called for. Where could the error be in those darned plans, surely there must be one since I've been so exceedingly careful about measuring everything three times before installing anything. Well, guess what. I put the rear attach bulkhead's FORWARD face exactly 5.00000 inches ahead of the firewall, whereas if I'd have looked at the drawings one more time I'd have seen it shoud be 5.000000 inches to the REAR face. The net result is that it's about 3/8 inch too far aft. And guess what else, if I move the forward gear attach bulkhead forward by that same amount, the top of it aligns perfectly with the LWX stringer. I'm afraid I know the one and only solution to this - cut out the rear gear attach bulkhead, make a new one, sand and sand and sand to get the fuse sides cleaned up from the mess, and get it right the second time. If anyone knows of an easier solution, please speak up. thanks, Jim From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: Ch 6 Dumb Screw Up (fwd) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 96 9:44:04 EST Jim Hocut writes: >Once upon a time there was an oaf that lived outside of >Atlanta, GA..... What's the rest of the story????? :-). >I'm afraid I know the one and only solution to this - cut out >the rear gear attach bulkhead, make a new one, sand and >sand and sand to get the fuse sides cleaned up from the >mess, and get it right the second time. If anyone knows of >an easier solution, please speak up. You may be able to carefully cut out the bulkhead with a hacksaw blade by hand, keeping the blade against the fuselage side as closely as possible. Once it's out (after a couple of hours of sawing) you can then sand the fuselage sides, and then flox the same bulkhead in place 3/8" further forward, without having to make a new one. Good luck! -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 02:10:36 -0500 From: JHocut@aol.com Subject: RE: Ch 6 Dumb Screw Up - Epilogue Thanks for the suggestions on this one everyone. After a little thought I decided against any attempt at leaving the rear bulkhead in place (3/8" too far aft) since this would affect my CG and increase the moment the canard would have to produce to rotate (however slight). Besides, this would have thrown off placement of the upper forward gear bulkhead. I basically did as Marc suggested, only that after about 30 minutes with the hacksaw blade, and being basically lazy I shoved the hacksaw blade into my sabre saw and had at it. With a little care it worked pretty good (only bloodied my hand once!). I thoroughly sanded away any remaining debris, and laid up 3 plies of bid in the affected area to approximate the width I lost in the bulkhead by cutting it out. It came out really good, everything else is fitting just right. Thanks, Jim Hocut Cozy IV # 448 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:34:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Randy Crutfield Subject: Fuel Bracket I know that most contributors to this forum are past this point, but I would like to join the club that has made three brackets, and list some things that don't work. Had a brilliant idea after reading about others having this problem in the Newsletter. I thought that I would get a piece of oak, use a quarter round router bit and radius the edge to 3/16" and bend the bracket around that. Well, seems like the 2024 is much harder than the oak, deformed the previously described radius, resulting in a cracked bracket. The key to making it from 2024 is as others have described, finding something at least 3 times the thickness of the material to bend the shoulders around. I bought a length of aluminum angle from the local hardware store and made two vise jaws, radiusing the corner down with a file. After clamping the material in the vise, I bent it using a board against the material and hitting it with a rubber mallet. (Spare bracket #2 was fabricated as described above without the board). Be very careful when cutting and filing the bracket, to keep the edges smooth, a nick in the metal can cause a crack to form later in the bending process. In my last attempt, I actually reshaped the bracket at the point that the bend takes place to relieve the stress. I did this similar to the way a crack is stop drilled, (envision a 1/8" hole drilled at the edge of the material on each side, on the bend line). Instead of drilling, I filed this radius. Why don't we members of the three bracket club wear the other two as necklaces at aviation gatherings so that we can recognize each other? :>) Randy Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:08:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: COZY: Chap 6 I will be starting chapter 6 tonight or tomorrow. I didn't really want to attach the 2 X 4's to the pine board, but nail them to my work table. Is this a bad idea, and did anyone have trouble with the pine board? ROY From: Lee Devlin Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 6 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:23:38 MDT > > I will be starting chapter 6 tonight or tomorrow. I didn't really want > to attach the 2 X 4's to the pine board, but nail them to my work table. > Is this a bad idea, and did anyone have trouble with the pine board? My workbench is built in two 6-foot sections from wooden I-beams and is supported by 4 saw horses. When I did Chapter 6, I set in on the floor and shimmed it level and attached the 2x4's to it. I got this idea from Marc Z. It seemed to me like it would be impossible to get a 12' length of pine board to do the job as well because they are prone to twisting and cupping. You only need to use it it for the length of time it takes to flox the sides to the bulkheads and then you can get your workbench back. Regarding your reference to nails, the people I've talked with use drywall or construction screws in almost all of the places in the plans that Nat calls for nails. They are *much* more conventient and are generally reusable. Lee Devlin Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:28:27 -0400 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Chap 6 In a message dated 96-07-19 18:25:10 EDT, leed@gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes: << >> I will be starting chapter 6 tonight or tomorrow. I didn't really want >> to attach the 2 X 4's to the pine board, but nail them to my work table. >> Is this a bad idea, and did anyone have trouble with the pine board? > My workbench is built in two 6-foot sections from wooden I-beams and is > supported by 4 saw horses. When I did Chapter 6, I set in on the floor > and shimmed it level and attached the 2x4's to it. I got this idea from > Marc Z. I also lowered my 12' table by attaching a set of 6" legs. This gets it down to a height where it is easy to work on. I also shimmed to get things level. Since then i have used a different technique to level my wing jig and the jig I built for the main landing gear. I take the base (12' board for instance) and drill holes for a 6" carriage bolt every two feet. I set up the bolts with the head bondoed to the floor, a nut, a washer, through the board, a washer and a final nut. By adjusting the lower nuts up and down you can make the whole thing perfectly level. You finish up by snugging down the top nut. I found this also takes the twist out of the board. Damark sells a laser pointer that I aim down the edges to assure there is no twist, dips or whatever. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 DFINN7971@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 14:33:46 EDT From: "Nick J Ugolini" Subject: COZY: Fuel Valve lubricant I took apart my fuel valve and was wondering if anyone knew of a lubricant I can use to reassemble it which is fuel proof. The "O" rings are not in the path of the fuel but I thought it would be good to put something on them... maybe a little motor oil. Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command P.O. Box 190010 N. Charleston, SC 29419-9010 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 00:04:30 -0700 From: rfisher@spacetech.com Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 - Bottom layups ratencio@coastalnet.com wrote: > > I need a little help in interpreting the plans. They call out "The > contoured surface gets 2 plies of BID at 45 deg fiber orientation. Lay up > the first ply in one direction, and the second ply in the crossing > direction." I assume this means 45 degs WRT the long. axis, but what does > applying in crossing direction mean. Does this mean with the way the > cloth rolls out? If someone could shine a little light my way I'd > appreciate it. TIA Chris responded: >Hi Rob, >The way I understand this is as follows: > _____________________________ \ / > \ <45 on edge or/ centre line as specified say layup #1 > \ / > \ / > \ / <45 other way of edge or centre line > >hope this helps. >next time tell us what part / chapter you are working please. >Chris - cvh@iafrica.com I've been a little confused by this myself. I have not yet started construction and I would like to understand this concept clearly before I do. As I understand your explanation, you are laying the first layer of glass in a 45 deg orientation to the part. The second layer then goes in the opposite 45 deg orientation. This would put the two layers in a 90 deg relationship to one another. If BID has an equal number of fibers in each direction, then this layup would be no different than if you laid both layers in the same direction, as long as it was 45 deg to the centerline of the part. My interpretation would be to lay the first layer 22 1/2 deg (roughly) to the centerline with the second layer 22 1/2 deg in the opposite direction. This would put the two layers in a 45 deg relationship to each other and you would have fibers running in 4 directions, instead of just 2. I would appreciate any help in clearing this up. Thanks. Russ Fisher rfisher@spacetech.com Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 10:55:38 -0700 From: Chris van Hoof Organization: C van Hoof - Architect Subject: COZY: (no subject) Ron, The drawing refers to the sides of the material. In glass the direction referred to is the direction of the fibres. All i'm telling you is that, what I understood by this instruction is that the edges of the material must cross the part in opposing directions - yes that would put the fibres in the same direction on each layer - since they are allready at 90 Deg to each other. Hope this satisfies, otherwise you should maybe read the 3rd chapter again, I do this once in awhile and the short Rutan version is enlarged and pasted to my epoxycupboard, this is read even more regularly. happy building - get started you won't believe how fast it goes. chris cvh@iafrica.com Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 16:31:20 -0600 (MDT) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: COZY: Chapter 6, First big goof I floxed in place the AFT and FWD landing gear bulkheads over the weekend. After I looked at the plans and drawing M-5 I began to think that things didn't look right. My bulkheads were not in line with the end of the diagonal stringer (LWX?). This is the one with the 45 degree cut on the end which should be vertical and flush with the spar cutout on the fuselage sides. Mine is not. I reread the plans in chapter 5, when the sides were trimed. I cut more foam from the front of the side then the rear. When I did this I guess I threw off the the placement of LXW. Does it matter that this stringer is not flush with the spar? I can't see in the plans that it does. After talking with Nat he told me to cut out the bulkheads and remeasure everything. I did that, what a pain, and everything is exact with the exception of the placement of that darn stringer. I reinstalled the aft bulkhead after I remeasured everything. I know it is in the right place and that LWX is not. Is this going to be a problem? Does LWX carry and loads from the spar? Does it have to be flush with the spar, if it is not can I make up for it with flox? ROY From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Chapter 6, First big goof (fwd) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 96 9:51:23 EDT Roy Grossinger writes: > I reinstalled the aft bulkhead after I remeasured everything. I know it >is in the right place and that LWX is not. Is this going to be a problem? >Does LWX carry and loads from the spar? Does it have to be flush with the >spar, if it is not can I make up for it with flox? Here's my $0.02 as a mechanical engineer looking at the load paths. The first question I'd ask is how far off is the end of the LWX from the spar cutout? Are we talking 0.125" or 1.0"? Secondly, I would guess that the LWX has a couple of tasks: first, be the positioning mechanism for the upper (tapered) front gear bulkhead and rear seatback, and second, assist in transferring compressive loads from the firewall/spar area forward to the fuselage sides. At any rate, if you leave the LWX where it is, you'll have to adjust the upper front gear bulkhead so the seatback will be in the right place, and you'll have to do some fairing in so that the layups will lay flat in chapter 9. If the mismatch is small, I'd argue that you can fill the gap with flox when you finally install the spar - it can certainly take compressive loads as well as wood can - it's just heavier. If the mismatch is large, I'd fabricate a small wooden block and flox it in place, so that all subsequent glass layups went over it and the wood was even with the spar cutout. If the mismatch is small, you might also be able to shave the top of the LWX down to where it was supposed to be, and fab a small wood block for the spar end (floxed in place). Then, you'd have all the external dimensions of the LWX where they were supposed to be, and you wouldn't have removed much wood at all. Considering how many layers of glass get put over this entire area in chapter 9, it's hard for me to imagine that the wood is critical in the stress paths - as long as it's there at all, it will serve it's purpose. Let us know what you do. -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 17:23:07 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 Did anyone else have trouble with the temporary firewall top longeron cutouts besides me? The plans template has them cocked a few degrees off true horizontal. Mine are considerably closer to horizontal. Also, the template has the LWX stringer, cocked at the same angle, and overlaping the bottom of the spar by about a tenth of an inch at the top inside corner of the stringer. I believe the bottom of the top longeron should be horizontal and flush with the top of the spar. Also think the highest point of the LWX stringer (must be at an angle due to slope of the fuselage side) should be flush with the bottom of the spar. Did I screw up? Do the longerons and stringers get shapped for the spar later? I'd like to know what others have done before I commit to a decission. Thanks, Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 From: "Steve Campbell" Subject: RE: COZY: Chapter 6 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:05:53 On Wed, 04 Sep 96 17:23:07 est, lschuler@cellular.uscc.com wrote... > Did anyone else have trouble with the temporary firewall top longeron > cutouts besides me? The plans template has them cocked a few degrees > off true horizontal. Mine are considerably closer to horizontal. I think that this is a fairly universal problem. Many of the builders that I have talked to have had to enlarge the openings in the temp firewall to get the longerons through. Apparently this difficulty in registration carries through to the actual firewall. Some folks have had to rip up and redo their reinforcements on the firewall because of this. Steve **************************************** Stephen A. Campbell Associate Professor, EE University of Minnesota ***************************************** Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 11:32:17 -0400 From: DFinn7971@aol.com Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 In a message dated 96-09-05 21:42:58 EDT, campbell@ee.umn.edu (Steve Campbell) writes about matching the firewall to the longerons: << I think that this is a fairly universal problem. Many of the builders that I have talked to have had to enlarge the openings in the temp firewall to get the longerons through. Apparently this difficulty in registration carries through to the actual firewall. Some folks have had to rip up and redo their reinforcements on the firewall because of this. >> I had the same difficulty and ended up having to patch the holes in the firewall and recut them. I'd suggest that when you cut the holes you leave them at the pilot hole stage. Later when you have the exact positioning you can square them off properly. There are discrepancies on the drawings that are probably due to errors in reproduction. I've found it best to match drawings and templates against previously made parts to confirm the fit before going full speed ahead. Dick Finn Cozy Mark IV #46 DFINN7971@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 09 Sep 96 11:50:14 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re: COZY: vacuum bagging Jim Hocut wrote: >Larry Schuler wrote: >> How did you do bag on the fuselage bottom? >It was a little bit of extra work, but not bad. Lay the bottom in place >like the plans show. Instead of building a "frame" to hold the shape of >the fuse bottom stretch a string or other straight edge across the length >of the fuselage as a reference. Take measurements of the distance from >your reference to the fuse bottom every 6 inches, which will give you a >chart from which you can cut a jig similar to the ones for the fuse sides. >I made 3 such jigs, one on the centerline, and one on each side a few >inches in from the side. The rest is very similar to making the forms for >the sides. Jim, Neat idea. I just finished floxing the sides to the 3 bulkheads this weekend, so the timing on this is great for me. I have been scratching my head a bit on how to do it and thought, in a similar manner, that I could a masonite form. Just wondering if you had any mating problems when you floxed the bottom in place? Did it turn out accurately enough? Also what are your thoughts about doing the outside bag? Larry Schuler #500 - Chap 6. From: ratencio@coastalnet.com Date: Wed, 11 Sep 96 11:54:07 -0400 Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 - NACA Scoop While marking the fuselage for the NACA scoop I found the aft L/G bulk opening for the scoop to be slightly too small. I remeasured the opening and it was 14.4 inches. After marking the scoop contour on the fuselage and bulkheads, I found the opening should be 14.8 inches. This is the original dimension called out on the L/G bulkhead drawing, but was changed in newletter 30 something, to 14.4 inches. Did anyone else run into to this? I would think that the 14.8 inch dimension would be the correct one since this would follow the scoop profile. Can anyone comment on this? Thanks ----------------------------------------------------------- Rob Atencio Cozy Mk IV #496 Chapter 7 New Bern, NC E-Mail: ratencio@coastalnet.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:47:40 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: Re: COZY: Chapter 6 - NACA Scoop ratencio@coastalnet.com wrote: > > I would think that the 14.8 inch dimension would be the correct one > since this would follow the scoop profile. this sounds like the correct plan. this keeps the curved, divergent walls a reasonable shape and provides the designed scoop entrance area (depth times width). according to the original naca reports* the optimum width-to-depth ratio should be between 3 and 5, with most designers opting for a 4-to-1 ratio while the ramp angle should be between 5 and 7 degrees. the best shape for the curved, divergent walls is up for debate since only a few shapes were ever tested. it appears that the way they were developed is as john roncz designs: look at what the streamlines do and then modify the shape to fit those streamlines. they noticed that more air was entering the beginning of the duct than the end, causing air to "spill out" just before the entrance. they decided to make the walls diverge from the entrance so that less air would enter at the beginning of the ramp. the curved side walls were a second iteration on that process. *see http://ab00.larc.nasa.gov/~kleb/naca/inlets.html --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9! cz4 -> aerocanard *see http://ab00.larc.nasa.gov/~kleb/naca/inlets.html for excerpts Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:40:32 -0400 From: "William B." <74744.2301@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: COZY: Chapter 6 - NACA Scoop Rob Atencio wrote: > While marking the fuselage for the NACA scoop I found the aft L/G bulk opening for the scoop to be slightly too small. I had the same problem and asked the same question a few months ago. The suggestion I took was to split the difference between the NACA template and the bulkhead. I sawed about a tenth of an inch off of both sides of the bulkhead opening and kept on truckin'. William E. Buckley (Cozy Mk IV, #437, Chap. 9) 74744.2301@compuserve.com Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:30:23 -0700 From: Chris van Hoof Organization: C van Hoof - Architect Subject: COZY: NACA scoop Hi Rob Atencio, "While marking the fuselage for the NACA scoop I found the aft L/G bulk opening for the scoop to be slightly too small....." It seems I'm just ahead of you and the same occured with me. In the archives others had the same, the advice was to follow the template, which is what I did. You will soon be shaping the fuselage , there is a difficult to understand piece coming up - near the firewall - read the archives for some good advice, then you won't shape too much (like I did :-)) chris #219 cvh@iafrica.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:37:49 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: COZY: chap 6: seatback brace/heat duct This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------446B794B15FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1) the foam layout for the seatback brace shown in chapter two appears to be wrong, since if you actually glass it that way you end up having two "lefts"(?) 2) btw: did anyone actually manage to glass bid, uni, and uni right next to each other on the sheet? i bailed and cut-out the seatback brace triangles and the two groups of rectangles, making four pieces to glass instead of one: the two seatback braces, the heat duct sides, and the heat duct top with map pocket spacers. i may have used a dollar worth of extra glass, but it sure seems like the way to go... 3) i am not sure i am interpreting the plans correctly with respect to assembly of the seatback brace/map pocket spacers: a) layout spacer positions b) match drill seatback braces for alignment nails c) trim spacers to fit (no archived of the answer to t. sullivan's question about the plan dimensioning descrepency of the spacers in dec 95) d) 5-minute the spacers together, but not to seatback brace e) prep glass surfaces and flox spacer assembly to seatback brace f) 1 layer of bid tape on un-glassed side of spacers (not overlapping the seatback brace/spacer joints?) g) flox to other seatback brace and insert nails into pre-drilled holes for cure the parts i am unclear about (at least that i am aware of ;) ) is the lack of joint taping and the bid taping. with regard to bid taping: it appears you have to be careful in choosing how the previously-glassed side of the spacers face, otherwise applying the bid tape might prove a little taxing in the small enclosed triangle near the bottom. --------------446B794B15FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=".sigeaa" --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9! cz4 -> aerocanard --------------446B794B15FB-- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 09:42:55 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: Re: COZY: chap 6: seatback brace/heat duct i have permission to share jim's comments on my chap 6 question: Hocut responded: It's been a little while since I did mine, so the details are a bit fuzzy. You're very correct in that there will be no way to tape some of the joints. As I recall I used the blunt end of a LONG drill bit to help get all the other glass in place, and did so right after applying flox and mating the sides to the spacers so that I was glassing over the wet flox fillets. My .02 - wait till the heat duct is in place to build the seatback brace, chances are that the dimensions will be off somewhat for whatever reason. Then you can carefully measure and build the brace to the exact dimensions to fit perfectly. Jim Hocut jhocut@mindspring.com --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 19:07:02 -0700 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: Chap.6 Landing gear bulkheads Cozy Builders, I'm ready to install the landing gear bulkheads in chapter 6. The plan says to flox the rear landing gear bulkhead in place 5 inches from the front face of the firewall to the rear face of the bulkhead. If this is accurate, how does the front face of the rear landing gear bulkhead end up flush with the forward face of the spar cutout (5.5 in.) I looked at drawing M-9 and double checked that the forward face of the firewall is even with the aft face of the spar. The rear L.G.bulkhead is 1/4 inch plus several plies of cloth layup, which doesn't amount to 1/2 inch. Help?? Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com CZMKIV #536 From: Marc J. Zeitlin Subject: COZY: Chap.6 Landing gear bulkheads (fwd) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 96 18:25:32 EDT Bill Kastenholz wrote: >................. how does the front face of the rear landing gear >bulkhead end up flush with the forward face of the spar cutout (5.5 >in.) I looked at drawing M-9 and double checked that the forward face >of the firewall is even with the aft face of the spar. The rear >L.G.bulkhead is 1/4 inch plus several plies of cloth layup, which >doesn't amount to 1/2 inch. Help?? Amazingly enough, when I measure my fuselage, the rear face of the bulkhead _IS_ 5" forward of the firewall, _AND_ the forward face is flush with the spar cutout. I guess all the layups eventually add up (at least to within 1/32"). -- Marc J. Zeitlin Email: marcz@an.hp.com From: "Ken Grakauskas" Subject: Re: COZY: Chap.6 Landing gear bulkheads Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 19:11:16 -0400 william g kastenholz wrote: > > I'm ready to install the landing gear bulkheads in chapter 6. The > plan says to flox the rear landing gear bulkhead in place 5 inches from > the front face of the firewall to the rear face of the bulkhead. If > this is accurate, how does the front face of the rear landing gear > bulkhead end up flush with the forward face of the spar cutout (5.5 > in.) I looked at drawing M-9 and double checked that the forward face > of the firewall is even with the aft face of the spar. The rear > L.G.bulkhead is 1/4 inch plus several plies of cloth layup, which > doesn't amount to 1/2 inch. Help?? The front gear bulkhead is in two pieces... a top and bottom. The bottom of the front gear bulkhead and the rear gear bulkhead are 5.5 inches apart. The top of the front bulkhead angles back to catch the main spar. If you look down on the completed assembly, the tips of the top front bulkhead are in line with the rear bilkhead. I looks something like this... / front upper / / | | front lower | | rear Look at M-9 and the portion you see angling aft is the front upper gear bulkhead. Ken Grakauskas New Century Engineering and Design Phone: 517-687-5007 Fax: 517-687-5517 E-mail: grakau19@wolv.tds.net Date: Mon, 30 Sep 96 10:09:10 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: Chap.6 Landing gear bulkheads Bill Kastenholz wrote: >I'm ready to install the landing gear bulkheads in chapter 6. The >plan says to flox the rear landing gear bulkhead in place 5 inches >from the front face of the firewall to the rear face of the bulkhead. >If this is accurate, how does the front face of the rear landing gear >bulkhead end up flush with the forward face of the spar cutout (5.5 >in.) I looked at drawing M-9 and double checked that the forward face >of the firewall is even with the aft face of the spar. The rear >L.G.bulkhead is 1/4 inch plus several plies of cloth layup, which >doesn't amount to 1/2 inch. Help?? Bill, I am at exactly the same point. Spent most of Sunday doing a lot of measuring and trying to figure some of the same stuff. The front side came VERY close to lining up with the front edge of the cutout on mine; but, as you noticed, it isn't "exact". I havn't floxed it in yet.... The remaining question I have for the group: I ended up with about a 1/8" gap between the bottom of the fuselage and the bulkhead on both sides. Has anyone had the same problem (due to firewall template cut outs I believe) and what is best way to deal with this? I have considered removing the temp firewall and re-doing the longeron custouts, or simply squeezing the sides to fit. ..... Help! BTW: Rather than using hot melt on the fuselage side to hold an alignment block in place, I decided to fasten 5" wood blocks to the firewall using sheet rock screws. Had to put one very thin shim in to get perfect vertical level. Cut a couple of 2" holes in the temp firewall for clamping. Seemed like a better way than hot melt (not sure I trust the stuff on critical surfaces {Yet}), also don't need to drill holes in the bulkhead for support nails as shown in the plans. Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 18:52:46 -0700 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 Landing Gear Bulkheads Sorry Guys, I'm humbled again! In chapter 4 I had missed the 8 and 3 ply und layups on the rear bulkheads thinking they were done in a later chapter. I did the 8 plys today and 3 more look like the thickness will be just about 1/2 inch. I learned that if 535 builders before me didn't have the same problem/question, maybe I goofed up. I also am planning to itemize the steps for each section of text rather than trying to just read the paragraphs and remember the whole shebang. After spending alot of time studying M-9, I'm impressed with how the design carries the landing stresses vertically from the aft landing gear bulkhead straight up through the front face of the center section spar. Thanks for the responses and sorry for the head scratching I might have caused. Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com MKIV #536 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 22:24:42 -0400 From: william l kleb Subject: COZY: chap 6: seatback brace/heat duct in answer to tim sullivan's question in oct '95 about the seemingly nonsensical dimensions for the seatback map holder spacers: next to figure 19 in chapter 6, write the words, "go look at M-14." the figure shows the spacers intersecting the hypotenus near 90 degrees, when in fact they should not be anywhere close to perpendicular. drawing M-14 makes this clear, and the dimensions in the figure work perfectly. just remember to put the glassed sides of the spacers so that inside the little triangle formed at the bottom right has glassed surfaces. i laid out the spacers in three different pen colors before i got them right... --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 12:42:46 From: JRaerocad@gnn.com (Jeff Russell) Subject: Re: COZY: chap 6: aileron control tube holes Bill Kleb wrote: >for those of you doing the plans-built/aerocanard fuselage >tub modification (ie, rear fuselage widening): > >did you drill holes for the aileron control tubes >in the aft landing gear bulkhead before you floxed the >lower firewall in place? > >if so, how did you know where to locate them? The Firewall full size template shows were to locate them. This template is from AeroCad. AeroCad Inc. Jeff Russell 1445 Crater Lane Yadkinville, NC. 27055 phone/fax 910-961-2238 E-mail: JRaerocad@gnn.com http://www.windev.com/aerocanard Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 12:04:19 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: COZY: chap 6: aileron control tube holes This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------ABD31DF237C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit for those of you doing the plans-built/aerocanard fuselage tub modification (ie, rear fuselage widening): did you drill holes for the aileron control tubes in the aft landing gear bulkhead before you floxed the lower firewall in place? if so, how did you know where to locate them? if not, how do you drill them once the lower firewall is in place? a long shaft drill bit? --------------ABD31DF237C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=".sigeaa" --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard --------------ABD31DF237C-- Date: Mon, 07 Oct 96 08:23:26 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: Front Ldg. gear Bulkhead Need some help. Preparing to do first layups (3 UNI) on the front face of the forward landing gear bulkhead. The plans call for cutting the plys exactly using a drawn template and laid down per Dwg M-5. The drawing only shows the UNI orientation. I futzed with this for couple of hours last night trying to figure out what's right. Possible I missed something, but neither the plans nor the drawing indicate whether the plys extend over the LWX stringer or extend onto the sides of the fuselage. I found some additional layups which are done later and extend to the sides and the bottom of the fuselage, but not these. It was too late to call Nat when I gave up looking.... Can anyone enlighten me? Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 CH-6 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 12:25:56 -0400 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: Re: COZY: Front Ldg. gear Bulkhead (chap 6) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------59E21CFB3F54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Larry Schuler wrote: > Preparing to do first layups (3 UNI) on the front face of the forward > landing gear bulkhead. [..snip..] i did them very similar to the uni layups on the rear landing gear bulkhead, ie, only on the bulkhead itself, not overlapping the sides. as you mentioned, the tie-in to the sides is done many times in later chapters. i figured the intent was to duplicate the uni layups on the aft gear bulkhead, but since the forward gear bulkhead was in two pieces, it had to wait until both pieces were floxed in place. additionally, if you overlap the lwx's with the uni, you really don't "tie" the two together due to the fiber direction being nearly parallel to the lwx's and you have to deal with cutting the uni where lwx continues and the bulkhead takes the turn downward. in a similar vein: one of marc z's initial questions (preserved in the '95 archives) asks about bid taping the lg bulkheads to sides (from his online log, it seems he didn't). the plans are unclear about this, since they only say that "the landing gear bulkheads are installed in a similar manner [to the other bulkheads,]" but then go on to give explicit instructions for their installation and never mention taping. eric w suggested taping if it makes you sleep better, but otherwise there are plenty of layups performed later which accomplish the same thing. to add to the confusion, newsletter #50 "builder hints" specifically mention that "[f]or Structural reasons, all joints should be taped.." (see http://www.ultranet.com/~marcz/cozy_mkIV/newsletters/news_50.html#builder_hints) --------------59E21CFB3F54 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename=".sigeaa" --- bill kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard --------------59E21CFB3F54-- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 96 10:18:13 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: COZY: Nat: on Forward Landing Gear Bulkhead I didn't get a response here yesterday, so I called Nat about the lack of direction on forward landing gear bulkhead layups in the plans. If you missed my question yesterday: The plans and drawing M-5 call for three UNI plies to be layed up on the front face of the bulkhead after floxing lower and upper sections in place, but does not describe whether the layups extend over the top of the LWX stringer or onto the fuselage sides. I also asked him about the instructions not requiring BID layups in the corners of the landing gear bulkheads as is done on the other bulkheads. I was, until now, interpreting the instructions to mean there were enough additional layups done in this area later so that these small corner plies were not needed and therefore weren't called for. My conversation was rather pleasant and he took the time to dig out the plans and drawing to look them over with me. All in all it was a rather revealing conversation about Nat and the design of the Cozy. Here is what Nat said (quoted as best I can and punctuation added by me for clarity and my clarification in [brackets]) for the benefit of others: "You need to add two plies of BID over all mating areas after floxing any parts together throughout the entire construction; I figure that after a builder has been doing the same thing ten times [I believe he was refereing to the bulkheads done prior to the gear bulkheads], a person will get the hang of it and there is no reason to keep repeating the instruction. Yes, you need to layup two plies of BID in the corners of both landing gear bulkheads." I then asked about the UNI layups and we studied the instructions and the M-5 drawing together and, after pondering it for a few moments, he came to the following design conclusion: "Since there are no cross fibers [he was refering to the fact that UNI fibers are mostly in one direction and in this case the orientation is mostly in a front-to back line relative to the fuselage sides per drawing M-5], there will be very little if any strength transfered to the sides; so, the UNI layups on the bulkheads do not need to extend onto the sides." At this time I am VERY tempted to, but will refrain from extending any personal opinion I have regarding his direction, the plans, or the design. However, I think it is important for the sake of safety to say that I did voice my concern directly to Nat about assuming a builder would "get the hang" of something and just naturally continue a process, procedure, or add a part when it is not specifically called for, especially when the builder is not warned at an appropriate point that something is continued through the remainder of the plans (as is done with 'stipling', for example). I mentioned that in following the many model airplane instructions in my younger years, I learned the hard way that every darn time I 'assumed' something in the design, it turned out to be wrong; and, to me a layup is as much a "part" as is a bolt and needs to be called out specifically. His only response was: "Hmmmm." Personally, I _HOPE_ that means he will think about it. I have tried to be as faithful as my neurons will permit in quoting him; I attach no warranty or garantee accordingly. Draw your own conclusions. Larry Schuler MKIV-#500 Ch-6 Scratching my haed...... and other places that itch from sanding dust. Date: Tue, 08 Oct 96 11:01:08 est From: "Larry Schuler" Subject: Re[2]: COZY: Front Ldg. gear Bulkhead (chap 6) Bill Kleb wrote: >[snip] >to add to the confusion, newsletter #50 "builder hints" >specifically mention that "[f]or Structural reasons, all >joints should be taped.." Thanks Bill, I talked to Nat last night and sent a post before reading your note. Nat didn't mention a design or plans change, but maybe he did it and forgot.... stuff happens. I will take a look at the news letter #50. Maybe I missed making the change in my plans as I do with all other design changes which Nat publishes in the newsletters..... shoot, I ain't perfect. I did take a look through Marc's log before calling Nat and it didn't help with my specific questions. Larry Schuler #500 Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 18:02:56 -0700 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: Chapter 6 Fuel Valve Fellow Cozy Builders, With chapter 6 I received the Weatherhead shut-off valve. A friend said there were quite a few articles in the old newsletters about these valves failing after use. He suggested using the Allen shut-off valve instead, although I see it is over $100 more. Any comments from those of you who have been around several years? Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com #536 by SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (PMDF V5.0-6 #10979) id <01IAY77E3Z04000CUW@SERV05.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> for cozy_builders@hpwarhw.an.hp.com; Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:16:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 16:18:56 -0700 From: hrogers@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Howard Rogers) Subject: COZY: Re: Fuel Valves >Fellow Cozy Builders, > With chapter 6 I received the Weatherhead shut-off valve. A friend >said there were quite a few articles in the old newsletters about these >valves failing after use. He suggested using the Allen shut-off valve >instead, although I see it is over $100 more. Any comments from those >of you who have been around several years? >Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com >#536 This is an issue that has been rehashed a thousand times in EZ circles. It never ceases to amaze me that folks who would spend untold thousands on all sorts of niceties for the airplane would balk at a $100 fuel valve. What could be more fundamental to the safety of you and your bird than its fuel system? There has been more than one forced landing, and more than one crunched bird as a result of the problems associated with the Weatherhead valves. Admittedly, one should think about some sort of maintenance or replacement when pliers are required to switch tanks, but, hey, it has happened! Don't waste your time on the Weatherhead valve. You *WILL* have problems with it, eventually. You cannot believe how nice and trouble-free the Allen valve is. Worth every penny! --Howard Rogers, 415-926-4052 hrogers@slac.stanford.edu Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 23:41:10 -0500 From: Neil Clayton Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Fuel Valves > Howard Rogers wrote... > Don't waste your time on the Weatherhead valve. You *WILL* have > problems with it, eventually. You cannot believe how nice and > trouble-free the Allen valve is... Whoops...I installed the vale Wicks sent with my CHap 6 order. Now I look in the plans and see it's called out a "Weatherhead". Before I start burrowing into the seat back to retrieve and replace it, pls describe what probs I can expect... Thx Neil Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 05:41:53 -0700 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: RE: Fuel Valves Cozy Builders, I called Nat about the fuel valve problem. Nat said there was a fuel valve very similar to the Weatherhead model called the Imperial fuel valve. This is the valve associated with several Vari-eze crashes in the early days. Nat called the FAA for statistics about the Weatherhead and Allen valves, and found they were both involved in an equal number of incidents. He has the Weatherhead in his MKIV. Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com Cozy MKIV #536 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:51:26 -0500 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: COZY: chap 6: inside bottom layup/fuselage attach contrary to all the archived advice about breaking the bottom lay-up into separate steps: we didn't. mary and i solicited the help of two others (r&l scott, also on the list) to do the bottom layup, then suffered through the floxing/taping/peelplying by ourselves. it truly was a horror taping upside down in a confined area after an already long day. if i were to do it again, i would: 1) do the bottom layup, peel-plying, at minimum, the areas which will be floxed/taped subsequently (and, of course, the overlapping edges of bid) 2) let cure (relax) 3) prep bonding areas (including those to be taped), flox bottom to fuselage sides and check for absence of fuselage twist, etc 4) let cure (relax) 5) put fuselage on side or bottom (suitably supported), prep bonding areas, and tape/peel-ply at your leisure... i realize that with the above proposed method, the "chemical bond" isn't present; but there are plenty of other more critical areas that don't (or can't) take advantage of the "chemical bond" either. besides the outside skin also serves to "hold the bottom on." --- bil kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:10:44 -0500 From: william l kleb Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Subject: COZY: chap 6: bottom foam / landing brake cutout ok, so i wasn't paying attention again: step 3 in chapter 6 says to lay out the 3/8" pvc foam sheets beginning at f22, trimming the last to fit against the foreward landing gear bulkhead: i did the opposite, i started with a full-width sheet against the forward landing gear bulkhead... i figured, hey, what's the difference? well, as it turns out, the 5-minute epoxy seam between the foam pieces perfectly coincides with the rear edge of the landing brake cutout, making for quite an ugly edge when the landing brake is cut out. being humble on my b-day, --- bil kleb (w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov) 72 bellanca 7gcbc 9? cz4 -> aerocanard Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:10:47 -0700 (MST) From: Roy Grossinger Subject: COZY: Chap 6, step 3. Well I'm finally back to work on the project before I move here in the next few weeks. I wanted to get the bottom on before I move it. Incredibly I've had the bottom ready to glass now for about two months. I finally did it. I was able to vacuum bag this similar to the bag I made for the sides, using a jig similar to the one used on the sides. The bag pulled in real nice as soon as I turned the pump on. Several hints to people getting to this layup: 1) Try not to do it alone, Nat's a layup wizard to be able to lay this up and flip it. Don't know how I could have gotten the corners to lay down without the bag. 2) Keep a scratching stick handy, its a long layup with a mask. 3) Take off your work shoes before going into the house for a mid-layup piss break. 4) Refill the epoxy pump BEFORE the layup. 5) Buy a tape player with auto-reverse. I also have a question. Where was that third lay to go? Nat says, "Add a 3rd BID ahead of the back seat where weight will be concentrated when climbing in." Where does the backseat start? Or was this supposed to be the Seat Back? I just put a third layer going the whole length of the floor aligned with the centerline. I figure I'll save a little weight with the vacuum bag so I could afford it. I've also been working on the Shoulder brace. I'm going to use 3/8" G-10 for the hard points, however I want to know if anyone has a better idea to get the nutplates in rather then cutting away at the support and then sliding them in? What is so bad about predrilling the holes and installing the nutplate with flox before you install the brace? ROY Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:39:07 -0800 From: wkasty@ix.netcom.com (william g kastenholz) Subject: COZY: Chap 6, Step 3 Hi Roy, I just made that bottom layup yesterday. Your list of suggestions were right on. I had the help of a fellow builder, Mike Mueller, without which I would still be squeegeing/stippling/swearing! I measured where the rear seat bottom attaches to be 19 3/4 inches ahead of the landing gear bulkhead and made the 3rd layup forward from this line for about 14 inches. This extends onto the raised section of foam. No one with a larger shoe size will be stepping into my backseat! Bill Kastenholz wkasty@ix.netcom.com Cozy MKIV#536